In a suit for partition among Class-I legal heirs, where the deceased died intestate, the property devolves equally among the heirs. Admissions made by parties during cross-examination regarding ownership and the number of heirs constitute decisive evidence, precluding the need for further proof of title.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, for separate possession by way of partition with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts. Defendant No.1 is impleaded herein as proforma respondent No.2.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the real sister of the defendants. Earlier the suit property as described in the plaint was in the ownership of their father Sh. Rup Chand son of Sheo Chand. Rup Chand had died on 06.01.2023 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as LRs. It was pleaded in the plaint that after the death of Rup Chand, suit property was owned and possessed in equal share i.e. 1/4th share each, by all the parties. It was alleged that thereafter, suit land was partitioned verbally; and since then, the plaintiff was in unhindered possession upon the suit property. However, now the defendants have become dishonest and in collusion with each other, had sought to dispossess the plaintiff. Plaintiff had requested the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession but to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 26.02.2021.

Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 as follows: -

“27. In view of findings on aforesaid issues, present suit of plaintiff succeed and is decreed with costs. Preliminary decree for partition of suit property is passed to the extent that plaintiff is owner to the extent of 1/4 share in suit property. Defendants no. 1 to 3 are owner to the extent of 1/4 share each in the suit property. Decree for permanent injunction is also passed in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating suit property more than their shares. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record room after due compliance.”

The Civil Appeal filed by defendants No. 2 and 3 was dismissed by the District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2024. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants No.2 and 3.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned District Courts have failed to appreciate that plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the disputed property. She had failed to prove her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The learned District Courts, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff have wrongly relied upon documents of house tax assessment register which is not a document of title. In fact, these entries of the house tax assessment register are merely used and made by the Municipal Authorities to maintain the record of assessment and collection of house tax and such entries made in the Municipal record may not be a legal document of ownership of any person in regard to an immovable property. Rather, the purpose of maintaining this house tax register or their entries is only to levy the house tax for Municipal Corporation. Hence, the findings recorded by courts below on this aspect are illegal, erroneous, perverse and not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. It is trite law that the Municipal Corporation cannot decide the question of title and its record containing entries is maintained for fiscal purpose like property tax/House tax etc.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that from the facts stated above, it is clear that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition of the property measuring 65 x 28 i.e. 200 sq. yards situated at Pachranga Bazar, Nohra Wali Gali, Vardhman Handloom, Panipat on the basis of the property Tax ID No.P03702110359 and Old property ID No. PAN/W08/8176/0114 on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are brothers and sister and after t