SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
BALBIR SINGH & ANR – Appellant
Versus
DARSHAN SINGH TH LRS & ORS – Respondent
CR_6753_2018



##PAGE1##

CR-6753-2018 1

278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-6753-2018

Date of decision : 18.05.2026

BALWINDER SINGH & ANR ....Appellants

Versus

DARSHAN SINGH THR. LRS & ORS ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondents No.5 and 6.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated

08.05.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khadur

Sahib, whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking passing of the

final decree of partition of the land, stands rejected.

2. Petitioner filed suit for partition. The same was decreed vide

judgment and decree dated 10.06.2008. Preliminary decree was passed. The

appeal preferred against the same stands dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 14.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran.

3. As per the decree that has attained finality, the petitioners herein

have been held entitled to the extent of 1/4th share out of the total suit land

measuring 09 Kanal 14 Marlas. The petitioners moved an application for

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.05.22 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

CR-6753-2018 2

passing of the final decree of partition. The same has been dismissed by the

Trial Court, observing as under:

“5. After hearing both the counsel for the parties and going

through the file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that

applicant/plaintiff alleged that the applicants/plaintiffs are entitled

for 2 kanals 6 marlas out of suit land measuring 9 kanals 14

marlas. They are entitled for their possession on the basis of

preliminary decree and accordingly, the final decree be passed in

their favour of 02 Kanals 6 marlas against the respondent and the

possession of the same be delivered to them. The

applicant/plaintiffs have alleged that they entitled for 2 kanals 6

marlas as per their share but it has not been proved by the

applicants that the share of other co sharers is much more in their

possession than their actual share. They have not proved the fact

that who is in excessive share from whom the applicants/plaintiffs

can recover their possession. Local commissioner was also

appointed, report of Local Commissioner is silent on the said fact

but it has proposed that where the maximum area is lying vacant,

the applicants/plaintiffs should be delivered the possession from

the same. But however it is not legally maintainable when it is not

proved that who is in excessive share of the suit property. Perusal

of report reveals that the possession is to be delivered as per the

proposed partition from the khasra no.486(2-12) where maximum

areas is lying vacant after removing some construction from it

which is raised by the defendants/respondents more than their

share. But the report does not reveals the fact that how much share

they have encroached from which the plaintiff is entitled and

which construction is to be removed. It is also not proved that the

construction can be compensated with monetary relief. It is not

proved by applicant/plaintiff that the remaining co sharers are in

their actual possession of the suit property and only the defendants

residing in khasra no. 486, are in their excessive share and they

have encroached the share of the applicant/plaintiff. The final

decree cannot be passed, it will effect the execution and will make

DEEPAK KUMAR

2026.05.22 09:44

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

CR-6753-2018 3

the execution in executable in future. The possession cannot be

delivered to the applicants in such situation. The final decree

cannot be passed without proper demarcation of all the co sharers

in the suits property and also showing which is the co sharer is in

excessive share. There are also passage in the suit property which

is also to be adjusted from the share of the applicants/plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs/applicant is entitled for his share from the person in

excess of his share after making all the adjus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top