F PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajit Singh Harbhajan Sin Singh & v. M) RSA No
Case Details
RSA No. 3209 209 of 2002 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajit Singh Harbhajan Sin Singh & Anr. Versus M) RSA No. 3209 of 2002 (O&M) 25 Reserved on: 12.11.2025 25 Pronounced on: 14.11.2025 5 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 nt …Appellant nts …Respondents CORAM: HON’ ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Argued by:- Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. te Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate For respondent No.1. *** DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J. The present Regular Seco nst econd Appeal is directed against the judgments ents and decrees passed by the Co uit e Courts below, whereby the suit for separate p te possession by way of partition in
Legal Reasoning
jan n instituted by plaintiff Harbhajan Singh (respond spondent herein) was decreed by on by the learned trial Court on 15.01.2000, an 0, and the appeal preferred by defe ent defendant No.1 Ajit Singh (present appellant) wa was dismissed by the learned ide ned First Appellate Court vide judgment dat dated 30.03.2002, thereby affirm rial ffirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. For the sake of clarity, the partie er arties are being referred to as per their status be s before the learned trial Court. 3. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 ns No.1 are real brothers being sons
Legal Reasoning
of Shri Hari ari Singh. Defendant No.2 Satnam eir tnam Singh is the son of their deceased unc uncle Mohan Singh. The disput ies spute relates to two properties described in t in the head-note of the plaint as i tiff as items ‘A’ and ‘B’. The plaintiff claimed 5/16 /16 share in property ‘A’; and 1/2 ing 1/2 share in property ‘B’, alleging difficulty in en n enjoying the properties jointly, an , and thus sought their partition. 4. Defendant No.1 contested of sted the suit only in respect of propert perty ‘B’, asserting exclusive owne his wnership on the ground that his JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 3 Page ages RSA No. 3209 209 of 2002 resident dential house existed on that portio ot rtion, and therefore, it should not be subje ubjected to partition. 5. Upon due appreciation ary ion of oral and documentary evidenc ence, the learned trial Court dec a decreed the suit and passed a prelimin liminary decree defining the share ed ares of the parties. The learned First Ap t Appellate Court affirmed the said f aid findings. 6. The sole contention raise he aised by learned counsel for the appellan ellant is that since the appellant’s h he t’s house exists on property ‘B’, he is entitle ntitled to retain exclusive possession uld ssion thereof and the same should not be p be partitioned. 7. This Court finds no merit ed. erit in the contention advanced. The pre present appeal arises out of a pre ge, preliminary decree. At this stage, the Cou Court is required only to determine he ine the shares of the parties. The mode a e and manner of partition, inc to including questions relating to possess session, structures, and equities, f he es, fall within the domain of the Court w rt while drawing the final decree. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Cour Court in Phool chand v. Gopal Lal, , AIR 196 1967 SC 1470, has held that mat nd matters concerning equities and conveni venience can be appropriately con nal considered at the stage of final decree. ree. Thus, constructive equities an be s and existing possession can be suitably ably balanced during final decree pr e proceedings. 9. Therefore, the plea of the ce the appellant regarding existence of a hou house on property ‘B’ is clearly pre be premature. The appellant shall be at liber liberty to raise such plea before of fore the Court at the stage of prepara paration of the final decree, whe ay where the executing Court may suitably ably take note of occupation, conve nvenience, and relative equities. 10. The shares of the parties rts rties, as recorded by the Courts below, w, remain undisputed before thi as this Court. The findings are as er: under: In prope roperty ‘A’: JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 Page ages RSA No. 3209 209 of 2002 Pl Plaintiff : 5/16 share D Defendant No.1 (appellant) : 3/16 share D Defendant No.2 : 1/2 share In prope roperty ‘B’: Pl Plaintiff : 1/2 share D Defendant No.1 (appellant) : 1/2 share 11. Learned counsel for the ap to e appellant has not been able to point ou out any perversity, misreading, o in ng, or non-reading of evidence in the conc concurrent findings of fact rendered ered by both the Courts below. 12. In exercise of jurisdiction he tion under Section 100 CPC, the High Co Court may interfere only where aw ere a substantial question of law arises. C es. Concurrent findings of fact, bas of based on proper appreciation of evidenc ence, cannot be disturbed unless sh ss shown to be perverse. 13. In the present case, no sub ses substantial question of law arises for det determination. The appeal is fou ual founded solely upon a factual assertio rtion relating to existence of a hou he house, which is irrelevant for the purpose poses of adjudication at the stage of e of preliminary decree. 14. In view of the above dis no discussion, this Court finds no illegality ality, perversity, or infirmity in th nd n the concurrent judgments and decrees rees passed by the Courts below. T ed w. The findings are well-reasoned and bas based upon correct appreciation tly, tion of evidence. Consequently, finding ing no merit in the present Regu me egular Second Appeal, the same stands ds dismissed. Pending application(s), if an
Decision
if any, shall stand disposed of. 14.11.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 3 Page ages