IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

292

RSA No.5018 of 2019 (O&M)

Reserved on : 30.08.2022

Date of Decision: 06.09.2022

Tara Singh (since deceased) through LR

....Appellant

VERSUS

Karam Singh and Others

....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

against the impugned judgments and decrees dated 27.05.2015 and

07.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court

respectively.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellant filed the present suit for declaration challenging the partition

proceedings and orders passed therein as also the partition deed dated

06.06.2007 on the ground that the same was the result of fraud and

misrepresentation played by the defendants-respondents. It was inter-alia

averred in the plaint that the partition deed does not bear the signatures and

thumb impression of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was contested by the

defendant-respondents on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction

to try the present case. It was further the case that the partition proceedings

had become final and the parties were in possession of their respective

shares. It was further stated that after passing of the final order of partition

dated 25.10.2001, sanad taksim was prepared and, thereafter, Rapat

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.09.06 18:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

Roznamcha No.225 dated 06.01.2010 was also prepared and the same was

implemented on the spot and khata of the parties of the suit was fully

separated. It was further averred that the entry regarding Rapat Roznamcha

No.225 had since been incorporated in the latest jamabandi for the year

2007-08 and now all the parties were in possession of their respective shares.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant

holding that the plaintiff-appellant in order to prove his case has produced

two witnesses - PW1 Balvir Kaur though stepped into the witness-box and

had reiterated her entire version as mentioned in the plaint - however the

said witness was not completely cross-examined and, hence, her testimony

could not be looked into. The second witness who stepped into the witness-

box was PW2 Sewa Kaur who stated in her cross-examination that she did

not know exactly what the case was for which she had come to depose in

Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant vide

judgment and decree dated 27.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment and

decree, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed

by the lower Appellate Court vide it’s judgment and decree dated

07.03.2019 holding that the partition proceedings were complete and the

parties were in possession of their respective shares as per the partition

proceedings and that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to show how the

orders passed by the Revenue Court were illegal. It was further held that the

partition proceedings stood finalized right upto the Court of Financial

Commissioner and the plaintiff-appellant had failed to show how the said

orders were illegal.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently

argued that the plaintiff-appellant had been able to prove his case by leading

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.09.06 18:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

cogent and reliable evidence and that the Courts below had erred in

dismissing his suit. However, this Court is unable to accept the contentions

raised by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. The counsel for the plaintiff-

appellant has not been able to demonstrate as to how and in what manner the

partition proceedings and the orders passed therein or the partition deed were

illegal a