Rs v. CORAM
Case Details
RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -1- - OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA-2117-1990 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: Reserved on:-02.12.2025 Pronounced Pronounced on:- 10.12.2025 Uploaded on:-10.12.2025 Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Pronounced or the full judgment i operative part/full judgment Seeta Bai (Since Deceased) through LRs Seeta Bai (Since Deceased) through LRs ....Appellant Sadha Nand (Since Since deceased) through LRs ....Respondent VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ajay K. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Ajay K. Gupta, Advocate and r. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. r. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. ndant This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defe This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defe against the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 04.06.1990 against the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 04.06.1990 against the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 04.06.1990 against the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 04.06.1990 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed while modifying the judgment and whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed while modifying the judgment and whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed while modifying the judgment and whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed while modifying the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 21.03.1989, which had partly decreed the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 21.03.1989, which had partly decreed the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 21.03.1989, which had partly decreed the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 21.03.1989, which had partly decreed the intiff. suit of the plaintiff. Brief facts 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed to be the In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed to be the In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed to be the In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed to be the 124, joint owner in possession of the house in dispute bearing Municipal No.YA-124, joint owner in possession of the house in dispute bearing Municipal No.YA joint owner in possession of the house in dispute bearing Municipal No.YA Bhiwani, to the extent of 1/2 share. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Bhiwani, to the extent of 1/2 share. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Bhiwani, to the extent of 1/2 share. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Bhiwani, to the extent of 1/2 share. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 Sita Bai died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The No.1 Sita Bai died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The No.1 Sita Bai died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The No.1 Sita Bai died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The plaintiff is the son and defendant No.6 is the daughter of deceased Ram Kishan plaintiff is the son and defendant No.6 is the daughter of deceased Ram Kishan plaintiff is the son and defendant No.6 is the daughter of deceased Ram Kishan plaintiff is the son and defendant No.6 is the daughter of deceased Ram Kishan TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -2- - from his first wife. After the demise of their mother, their father Ram Kishan from his first wife. After the demise of their mother, their father Ram Kishan from his first wife. After the demise of their mother, their father Ram Kishan from his first wife. After the demise of their mother, their father Ram Kishan ceased defendant No.1 Sita Bai and from this wedlock married again with deceased defendant No.1 Sita Bai and from this wedlock ceased defendant No.1 Sita Bai and from this wedlock married again with de were born. It was averred that deceased Ram Kishan had defendants No.3 to 5 were born. It was averred that deceased Ram Kishan had were born. It was averred that deceased Ram Kishan had defendants No.3 to purchased the plot vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1957 and constructed the purchased the plot vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1957 and constructed the purchased the plot vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1957 and constructed the purchased the plot vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1957 and constructed the e house was inherited by the plaintiff house in question. Upon his death in 1965, the house was inherited by the plaintiff e house was inherited by the plaintiff house in question. Upon his death in 1965, th and deceased Sita Bai in equal shares, but since it was not possible for the plaintiff and deceased Sita Bai in equal shares, but since it was not possible for the plaintiff and deceased Sita Bai in equal shares, but since it was not possible for the plaintiff and deceased Sita Bai in equal shares, but since it was not possible for the plaintiff to remain joint in possession, he shifted to another house though his symbolic to remain joint in possession, he shifted to another house though his symbolic to remain joint in possession, he shifted to another house though his symbolic to remain joint in possession, he shifted to another house though his symbolic tempting to alienate the suit possession continued. Alleging that Sita Bai was attempting to alienate the suit possession continued. Alleging that Sita Bai was at possession continued. Alleging that Sita Bai was at property by fabricating an adoption deed dated 21.01.1985 in favour of defendant property by fabricating an adoption deed dated 21.01.1985 in favour of defendant property by fabricating an adoption deed dated 21.01.1985 in favour of defendant property by fabricating an adoption deed dated 21.01.1985 in favour of defendant No.2, which the plaintiff alleged to be false and invalid, the suit for declaration was No.2, which the plaintiff alleged to be false and invalid, the suit for declaration was No.2, which the plaintiff alleged to be false and invalid, the suit for declaration was No.2, which the plaintiff alleged to be false and invalid, the suit for declaration was filed. Defendant No.6 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. filed. Defendant No.6 admitted the claim of the plaintiff filed. Defendant No.6 admitted the claim of the plaintiff 3.
Legal Reasoning
The contesting defendants denied the entitlement of the plaintiff, The contesting defendants denied the entitlement of the plaintiff, The contesting defendants denied the entitlement of the plaintiff, The contesting defendants denied the entitlement of the plaintiff, pleaded that the plaintiff had already sold his share in the suit property, and pleaded that the plaintiff had already sold his share in the suit property, and pleaded that the plaintiff had already sold his share in the suit property, and pleaded that the plaintiff had already sold his share in the suit property, and claimed that the entire house was bequeathed to deceased Sita Bai under a Will claimed that the entire house was bequeathed to deceased Sita Bai under a Will claimed that the entire house was bequeathed to deceased Sita Bai under a Will claimed that the entire house was bequeathed to deceased Sita Bai under a Will They further pleaded that Sita Bai had adopted defendant executed by Ram Kishan. They further pleaded that Sita Bai had adopted defendant They further pleaded that Sita Bai had adopted defendant executed by Ram Kishan. No.2 according to Hindu rites and thus he was entitled to the property. No.2 according to Hindu rites and thus he was entitled to the property. No.2 according to Hindu rites and thus he was entitled to the property. 4. The stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff had no concern with The stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff had no concern with The stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff had no concern with The stand of the defendants was that the plaintiff had no concern with during the lifetime of Sita Bai. the suit property as he had already sold his share during the lifetime of Sita Bai. the suit property as he had already sold his share the suit property as he had already sold his share They contended that the answering defendants were in exclusive possession of the They contended that the answering defendants were in exclusive possession of the They contended that the answering defendants were in exclusive possession of the They contended that the answering defendants were in exclusive possession of the property and that deceased Sita Bai had legally adopted defendant No.2. They property and that deceased Sita Bai had legally adopted defendant No.2. They property and that deceased Sita Bai had legally adopted defendant No.2. They property and that deceased Sita Bai had legally adopted defendant No.2. They raised the pleas of estoppel, mis-joinder of parties and lack of raised the pleas of estoppel, mis locus standi. It was joinder of parties and lack of locus standi. It was further asserted that the house was not joint property as claimed by the plaintiff, further asserted that the house was not joint property as claimed by the plaintiff, further asserted that the house was not joint property as claimed by the plaintiff, further asserted that the house was not joint property as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the suit was false and frivolous. and that the suit was false and frivolous. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of 1/2 share in Whether the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of 1/2 share in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the house as fully described in the heading of the plaint? OPP the house as fully described in the heading of the plaint? OPP the house as fully described in the heading of the plaint? OPP RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -3- - 2. Whether defendant No.2 is not adopted son of deceased Whether defendant No.2 is not adopted son of deceased Whether defendant No.2 is not adopted son of deceased defendant No.1 as alleged? OPD defendant No.1 as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the suit land? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the suit land? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the suit land? OPP OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit has not been valued pr operly for the purpose Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs? If so, how much? OPD entitled to special costs? If so, how much? OPD entitled to special costs? If so, how much? OPD 9. Relief. 6. Both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence. Both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence. Both the parties have led oral and documentary evidence. the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 7. On issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held that deceased Ram Kishan On issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held that deceased Ram Kishan On issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held that deceased Ram Kishan On issue No.1, the learned Trial Court held that deceased Ram Kishan had purchased the plot and constructed the house in dispute and that the plaintiff had purchased the plot and constructed the house in dispute and that the plaintiff had purchased the plot and constructed the house in dispute and that the plaintiff had purchased the plot and constructed the house in dispute and that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 were admittedly the children of deceased Ram Kishan from his and defendant No.6 were admittedly the children of deceased Ram Kishan from his and defendant No.6 were admittedly the children of deceased Ram Kishan from his and defendant No.6 were admittedly the children of deceased Ram Kishan from his st wife. It was further held that Sita Bai, the second wife, was also alive at the first wife. It was further held that Sita Bai, the second wife, was also alive at the st wife. It was further held that Sita Bai, the second wife, was also alive at the st wife. It was further held that Sita Bai, the second wife, was also alive at the time of the death of Ram Kishan and, therefore time of the death of Ram Kishan and she along with the plaintiff and therefore, she along with the plaintiff and defendant No.6, as well as her own daughters (defendants No.3 to 5 defendant No.6, as well as her own ), inherited the daughters (defendants No.3 to 5), inherited the in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and were each entitled to 1/6th property in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and were each entitled to 1/6th in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and were each entitled to 1/6th in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and were each entitled to 1/6th concluded that the plaintiff was a joint owner in share. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff was a joint owner in concluded that the plaintiff was a joint owner in share. The Trial Court possession of the house. possession of the house. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -4- - 8. On issue No.2, the Trial Court found that the alleged adoption of On issue No.2, the Trial Court found that the alleged adoption of On issue No.2, the Trial Court found that the alleged adoption of On issue No.2, the Trial Court found that the alleged adoption of endant No.2 was not proved in accordance with law. There was no evidence to defendant No.2 was not proved in accordance with law. There was no evidence to endant No.2 was not proved in accordance with law. There was no evidence to endant No.2 was not proved in accordance with law. There was no evidence to show that deceased Sita Bai had the competence to adopt or that defendant No.2 show that deceased Sita Bai had the competence to adopt or that defendant No.2 show that deceased Sita Bai had the competence to adopt or that defendant No.2 show that deceased Sita Bai had the competence to adopt or that defendant No.2 had actually been taken in adoption. The adoption deed was held inadmissible for had actually been taken in adoption. The adoption deed was held inadmissible for had actually been taken in adoption. The adoption deed was held inadmissible for had actually been taken in adoption. The adoption deed was held inadmissible for ssue was, therefore, decided against the defendants. want of proof. The issue was, therefore, decided against the defendants. want of proof. The i 9. On issue No.3, the Trial Court held that although the plaintiff was On issue No.3, the Trial Court held that although the plaintiff was On issue No.3, the Trial Court held that although the plaintiff was On issue No.3, the Trial Court held that although the plaintiff was found to have 1/6th share in the property, the question of partition of a dwelling found to have 1/6th share in the property, the question of partition of a dwelling found to have 1/6th share in the property, the question of partition of a dwelling found to have 1/6th share in the property, the question of partition of a dwelling no right to claim partition so long house could not arise since the female heirs had no right to claim partition so long house could not arise since the female heirs had house could not arise since the female heirs had as the male heirs chose to keep the property joint. The issue was accordingly as the male heirs chose to keep the property joint. The issue was accordingly as the male heirs chose to keep the property joint. The issue was accordingly as the male heirs chose to keep the property joint. The issue was accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of recognising his share, but the decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of recognising his share, but the decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of recognising his share, but the decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of recognising his share, but the prayer for partition was not granted. prayer for partition was not granted. 10. On issue No.4, in view of the finding that the plaintiff was co On issue No.4, owner in view of the finding that the plaintiff was co-owner in possession of the house and that the defendants had no right to alienate the suit in possession of the house and that the defendants had no right to alienate the suit in possession of the house and that the defendants had no right to alienate the suit in possession of the house and that the defendants had no right to alienate the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the Trial Court granted injunction in property to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the Trial Court granted injunction in property to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the Trial Court granted injunction in property to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the Trial Court granted injunction in g the defendants from alienating the suit property. favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. g the defendants from alienating the suit property. favour of the plaintiff restrainin 11. Issues No.5 to 8 were decided against the defendants as they failed to Issues No.5 to 8 were decided against the defendants as they failed to Issues No.5 to 8 were decided against the defendants as they failed to Issues No.5 to 8 were decided against the defendants as they failed to lead any evidence in support of their objections. lead any evidence in support of their objections. lead any evidence in support of their objections. 12. On the relief issue, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the On the relief issue, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the On the relief issue, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the On the relief issue, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the ntiff to the extent that he was declared owner in possession of 1/6th share of the plaintiff to the extent that he was declared owner in possession of 1/6th share of the ntiff to the extent that he was declared owner in possession of 1/6th share of the ntiff to the extent that he was declared owner in possession of 1/6th share of the house described in the head note of the plaint and restrained defendants No.3 to 5 house described in the head note of the plaint and restrained defendants No.3 to 5 house described in the head note of the plaint and restrained defendants No.3 to 5 house described in the head note of the plaint and restrained defendants No.3 to 5 from alienating the suit property. from alienating the suit property. Findings of the lower Appellate Court Findings of the lower Appellate Court 13. ieved by the judgement and decree of trial court, the Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and decree of trial court, the ieved by the judgement and decree of trial court, the Feeling aggr plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. 14. The Lower Appellate Court examined the judgment of the learned The Lower Appellate Court examined the judgment of the learned The Lower Appellate Court examined the judgment of the learned The Lower Appellate Court examined the judgment of the learned decreed Trial Court and the evidence on record. It noted that the Trial Court had decreed Trial Court and the evidence on record. It noted that the Trial Court had Trial Court and the evidence on record. It noted that the Trial Court had TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -5- - the suit of the plaintiff partially by granting a declaration of 1/6th share and the suit of the plaintiff partially by granting a declaration of 1/6th share and the suit of the plaintiff partially by granting a declaration of 1/6th share and the suit of the plaintiff partially by granting a declaration of 1/6th share and injunction against alienation, while declining the relief of partition. The Lower injunction against alienation, while declining the relief of partition. The Lower injunction against alienation, while declining the relief of partition. The Lower injunction against alienation, while declining the relief of partition. The Lower Appellate Court re-evaluated these findings. Appellate Court re 15.
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the appellant assailed The Court observed that the learned counsel for the appellant assailed The Court observed that the learned The Court observed that the learned the judgment of the Trial Court primarily on Issue No.3 regarding partition and the judgment of the Trial Court primarily on Issue No.3 regarding partition and the judgment of the Trial Court primarily on Issue No.3 regarding partition and the judgment of the Trial Court primarily on Issue No.3 regarding partition and Issue No.1 concerning share of the plaintiff, asserting misreading of evidence and Issue No.1 concerning share of the plaintiff, asserting misreading of evidence and Issue No.1 concerning share of the plaintiff, asserting misreading of evidence and Issue No.1 concerning share of the plaintiff, asserting misreading of evidence and urt, it appeared to the misconception of law. From the discussion of the Trial Court, it appeared to the misconception of law. From the discussion of the Trial Co misconception of law. From the discussion of the Trial Co Appellate Court that the Trial Court treated the suit incorrectly as having been filed Appellate Court that the Trial Court treated the suit incorrectly as having been filed Appellate Court that the Trial Court treated the suit incorrectly as having been filed Appellate Court that the Trial Court treated the suit incorrectly as having been filed by female heirs, whereas the present suit was filed by Sadha Nand, a male heir, for by female heirs, whereas the present suit was filed by Sadha Nand, a male heir, for by female heirs, whereas the present suit was filed by Sadha Nand, a male heir, for by female heirs, whereas the present suit was filed by Sadha Nand, a male heir, for share and therefore partition. The Trial Court had held that Sadha Nand had 1/6th share and therefore partition. The Trial Court had held that Sadha Nand had 1/6th partition. The Trial Court had held that Sadha Nand had 1/6th was entitled to partition and possession. The Appellate Court confirmed that was entitled to partition and possession. The Appellate Court confirmed that was entitled to partition and possession. The Appellate Court confirmed that was entitled to partition and possession. The Appellate Court confirmed that defendants No.3 to 6 were female heirs of Ram Kishan. defendants No.3 to 6 were female heirs of Ram Kishan. defendants No.3 to 6 were female heirs of Ram Kishan. 16. Regarding Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Regarding Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Regarding Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate Regarding Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Appellate seek partition of a dwelling house so long as Court held that female heirs cannot seek partition of a dwelling house so long as seek partition of a dwelling house so long as Court held that female heirs cannot male heirs choose to keep it joint. However, this prohibition applies only to female male heirs choose to keep it joint. However, this prohibition applies only to female male heirs choose to keep it joint. However, this prohibition applies only to female male heirs choose to keep it joint. However, this prohibition applies only to female heirs. Since the present suit for partition was filed by the male heir, Sadha Nand, heirs. Since the present suit for partition was filed by the male heir, Sadha Nand, heirs. Since the present suit for partition was filed by the male heir, Sadha Nand, heirs. Since the present suit for partition was filed by the male heir, Sadha Nand, Therefore, the Trial Court committed an the bar under Section 23 did not apply. Therefore, the Trial Court committed an Therefore, the Trial Court committed an the bar under Section 23 did not apply. error by treating the suit as if filed by female heirs. The Appellate Court observed error by treating the suit as if filed by female heirs. The Appellate Court observed error by treating the suit as if filed by female heirs. The Appellate Court observed error by treating the suit as if filed by female heirs. The Appellate Court observed that the house in dispute was in possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and during the that the house in dispute was in possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and during the that the house in dispute was in possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and during the that the house in dispute was in possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and during the use. Sadha Nand apprehended that lifetime of Sita Bai, she also resided in the house. Sadha Nand apprehended that lifetime of Sita Bai, she also resided in the ho lifetime of Sita Bai, she also resided in the ho therefore, he filed the suit for declaration, Sita Bai would alienate the property, therefore, he filed the suit for declaration, therefore, he filed the suit for declaration, Sita Bai would alienate the property permanent injunction and partition. The suit was, therefore, held maintainable. permanent injunction and partition. The suit was, therefore, held maintainable. permanent injunction and partition. The suit was, therefore, held maintainable. 17. The Appellate Court referred to Janabai Ammal alias Gu The Appellate Court referred to nabooshani Janabai Ammal alias Gunabooshani vs. TAS Palani Mudaliar and Others AIR 1981 Madras 62 vs. TAS Palani Mudaliar , holding that a female and Others AIR 1981 Madras 62 , holding that a female heir has no right to claim partition of a dwelling house when male heirs choose to heir has no right to claim partition of a dwelling house when male heirs choose t heir has no right to claim partition of a dwelling house when male heirs choose t heir has no right to claim partition of a dwelling house when male heirs choose t keep it joint. It also cited Saroj Kumar Mondal keep it joint. It also cited vs Anil Kumar Mondal Saroj Kumar Mondal (minor) vs Anil Kumar Mondal TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -6- - and Others 1979 Hindu Law Reporter 237 , supporting that Section 23 is a special ers 1979 Hindu Law Reporter 237, supporting that Section 23 is a special , supporting that Section 23 is a special provision restricting only female heirs, not male heirs, from seeking partition. provision restricting only female heirs, not male heirs, from seeking partition. provision restricting only female heirs, not male heirs, from seeking partition. provision restricting only female heirs, not male heirs, from seeking partition. Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that Sadha Nand, being the male Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that Sadha Nand, being the male Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that Sadha Nand, being the male Applying these precedents, the Court concluded that Sadha Nand, being the male heir, could maintain the suit for partition. heir, could maintain th 18. The Court further held that Ram Kishan had left two dwelling houses, The Court further held that Ram Kishan had left two dwelling houses, The Court further held that Ram Kishan had left two dwelling houses, The Court further held that Ram Kishan had left two dwelling houses, one in possession of Sadha Nand and another forming the subject matter of the one in possession of Sadha Nand and another forming the subject matter of the one in possession of Sadha Nand and another forming the subject matter of the one in possession of Sadha Nand and another forming the subject matter of the dispute. Since the suit was filed by Sadha Nand and not by female heirs, the suit dispute. Since the suit was filed by Sadha Nand and not by female heirs, the suit dispute. Since the suit was filed by Sadha Nand and not by female heirs, the suit dispute. Since the suit was filed by Sadha Nand and not by female heirs, the suit for partition along with the declaratory relief and injunction was legally for partition along with the declaratory relief and injunction was legally for partition along with the declaratory relief and injunction was legally for partition along with the declaratory relief and injunction was legally maintainable. The Trial Court’s findings declining partition were, therefore, maintainable. The Trial Court’s findings declining partition were, therefore, maintainable. The Trial Court’s findings declining partition were, therefore, maintainable. The Trial Court’s findings declining partition were, therefore, erroneous. 19. On the objection of the respondents that Ram Kishan had sold half On the objection of the respondents that Ram Kishan had sold half On the objection of the respondents that Ram Kishan had sold half On the objection of the respondents that Ram Kishan had sold half one Ram Chander, the Court held that a mere agreement does share of the house to one Ram Chander, the Court held that a mere agreement does one Ram Chander, the Court held that a mere agreement does share of the house to not amount to a completed sale, and since no sale deed was executed and no suit not amount to a completed sale, and since no sale deed was executed and no suit not amount to a completed sale, and since no sale deed was executed and no suit not amount to a completed sale, and since no sale deed was executed and no suit for enforcement was filed by Ram Chander, such a claim had no merit. Hence, for enforcement was filed by Ram Chander, such a claim had no merit. Hence, for enforcement was filed by Ram Chander, such a claim had no merit. Hence, for enforcement was filed by Ram Chander, such a claim had no merit. Hence, non-joinder of Ram Chander was not fatal to the suit. joinder of Ram Chander was not fatal to the suit. 20. As regards cross-objections filed by the defendant As regards cross respondents, the objections filed by the defendant–respondents, the Lower Appellate Court noted that these were dismissed, and in view of the Lower Appellate Court noted that these were dismissed, and in view of the Lower Appellate Court noted that these were dismissed, and in view of the Lower Appellate Court noted that these were dismissed, and in view of the observations in State of Bihar Vs. Jehal Mahto and Others observations in AIR 1964 Patna 207, State of Bihar Vs. Jehal Mahto and Others AIR 1964 Patna 207 objections unsuccessfully could not dispute the respondents who filed cross-objections unsuccessfully could not dispute the objections unsuccessfully could not dispute the respondents who f findings now. 21. After considering the entire matter, the Lower Appellate Court held After considering the entire matter, the Lower Appellate Court held After considering the entire matter, the Lower Appellate Court held After considering the entire matter, the Lower Appellate Court held that the Trial Court erred in denying partition. The declaration and permanent that the Trial Court erred in denying partition. The declaration and permanent that the Trial Court erred in denying partition. The declaration and permanent that the Trial Court erred in denying partition. The declaration and permanent Court were maintained, but the findings declining injunction granted by the Trial Court were maintained, but the findings declining Court were maintained, but the findings declining injunction granted by the Trial partition were set aside. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and a preliminary partition were set aside. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and a preliminary partition were set aside. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and a preliminary partition were set aside. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and a preliminary decree for partition was ordered. No order was made regarding costs. decree for partition was ordered. No order was made regarding costs. decree for partition was ordered. No order was made regarding costs. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -7- - 22. late Court, the Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court, the Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Lower Appel Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Lower Appel approached this Court by way of the present regular second appellants/defendants approached this Court by way of the present regular second approached this Court by way of the present regular second appellants/defendants appeal, which w contested by the plaintiff/respondent. was contested by the plaintiff/respondent. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 23. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the f Learned counsel for indings of the learned assailed the findings of the learned 1990 suffers Lower Appellate Court by submitting that the judgment dated 04.06.1990 suffers Lower Appellate Court by submitting that the judgment dated Lower Appellate Court by submitting that the judgment dated from serious legal and factual infirmities. It was argued that the learned Lower from serious legal and factual infirmities. It was argued that the learned Lower from serious legal and factual infirmities. It was argued that the learned Lower from serious legal and factual infirmities. It was argued that the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Tria Appellate Court erred in reversing the well l Court on reasoned findings of the Trial Court on the issue of partition, particularly Issue No.3, where the Trial Court had correctly the issue of partition, particularly Issue No.3, where the Trial Court had correctly the issue of partition, particularly Issue No.3, where the Trial Court had correctly the issue of partition, particularly Issue No.3, where the Trial Court had correctly held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu held that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and that the property being a dwelling house, the daughters had no Succession Act and that the property being a dwelling house, the daughters had no Succession Act and that the property being a dwelling house, the daughters had no Succession Act and that the property being a dwelling house, the daughters had no ht of partition. It was further contended that the Trial Court had rightly treated right of partition. It was further contended that the Trial Court had rightly treated ht of partition. It was further contended that the Trial Court had rightly treated ht of partition. It was further contended that the Trial Court had rightly treated the suit to be in the nature of a partition claim brought by daughters, whereas the the suit to be in the nature of a partition claim brought by daughters, whereas the the suit to be in the nature of a partition claim brought by daughters, whereas the the suit to be in the nature of a partition claim brought by daughters, whereas the Lower Appellate Court misdirected itself in holding that the suit was filed by a Lower Appellate Court misdirected itself in holding that the suit was filed by a Lower Appellate Court misdirected itself in holding that the suit was filed by a Lower Appellate Court misdirected itself in holding that the suit was filed by a r and therefore maintainable, although the entire pleading and conduct of male heir and therefore maintainable, although the entire pleading and conduct of r and therefore maintainable, although the entire pleading and conduct of r and therefore maintainable, although the entire pleading and conduct of the plaintiff showed that he was seeking a declaration for himself alone and not for the plaintiff showed that he was seeking a declaration for himself alone and not for the plaintiff showed that he was seeking a declaration for himself alone and not for the plaintiff showed that he was seeking a declaration for himself alone and not for all heirs. 24. further argued Learned counsel further argued further argued Learned counsel that that that the suit the suit the suit itself was not itself was not itself was not laintiff sought a declaration of joint ownership only in respect maintainable as the plaintiff sought a declaration of joint ownership only in respect laintiff sought a declaration of joint ownership only in respect maintainable as the p of one property, whereas the pleadings admitted existence of two houses owned by of one property, whereas the pleadings admitted existence of two houses owned by of one property, whereas the pleadings admitted existence of two houses owned by of one property, whereas the pleadings admitted existence of two houses owned by deceased Ram Kishan. Since a person seeking declaration of joint ownership or deceased Ram Kishan. Since a person seeking declaration of joint ownership or deceased Ram Kishan. Since a person seeking declaration of joint ownership or deceased Ram Kishan. Since a person seeking declaration of joint ownership or properties left by the deceased, the present suit, partition must include all joint properties left by the deceased, the present suit, properties left by the deceased, the present suit, partition must include all joint which related only to one property, was bad for partial partition. The plaintiff did which related only to one property, was bad for partial partition. The plaintiff did which related only to one property, was bad for partial partition. The plaintiff did which related only to one property, was bad for partial partition. The plaintiff did not plead that the other house was exclusively in his possession nor did he allege not plead that the other house was exclusively in his possession nor did he allege not plead that the other house was exclusively in his possession nor did he allege not plead that the other house was exclusively in his possession nor did he allege share in any property. The omission to that he was occupying more than his share in any property. The omission to share in any property. The omission to that he was occupying more than his include all the properties of the deceased rendered the suit defective in law and include all the properties of the deceased rendered the suit defective in law and include all the properties of the deceased rendered the suit defective in law and include all the properties of the deceased rendered the suit defective in law and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -8- - sharer cannot seek partition of only one of contrary to the settled principle that a co-sharer cannot seek partition of only one of sharer cannot seek partition of only one of contrary to the settled principle that a co several properties. several properties. 25. t the plaintiff deliberately withheld material It was also argued that the plaintiff deliberately withheld material t the plaintiff deliberately withheld material It was also argued tha a Nand vs. Sita facts. The plaintiff had himself, in an earlier litigation titled Sadha Nand vs. Sita facts. The plaintiff had himself, in an earlier litigation titled facts. The plaintiff had himself, in an earlier litigation titled , made admissions regarding alienation by him or his father, and that certain Bai, made admissions regarding alienation by him or his father, and that certain , made admissions regarding alienation by him or his father, and that certain , made admissions regarding alienation by him or his father, and that certain g portions of the suit property in favour sale deeds or agreements existed concerning portions of the suit property in favour g portions of the suit property in favour sale deeds or agreements existed concernin of Ram Chander, who was not impleaded as a necessary party. Once the plaintiff of Ram Chander, who was not impleaded as a necessary party. Once the plaintiff of Ram Chander, who was not impleaded as a necessary party. Once the plaintiff of Ram Chander, who was not impleaded as a necessary party. Once the plaintiff pleaded joint ownership and other persons were claiming independent possession, pleaded joint ownership and other persons were claiming independent possession, pleaded joint ownership and other persons were claiming independent possession, pleaded joint ownership and other persons were claiming independent possession, The appellant argued that joinder of Ram Chander constituted a fatal defect. The appellant argued that joinder of Ram Chander constituted a fatal defect. non-joinder of Ram Chander constituted a fatal defect. the Trial Court had rightly observed that an agreement to sell is not a sale deed, but the Trial Court had rightly observed that an agreement to sell is not a sale deed, but the Trial Court had rightly observed that an agreement to sell is not a sale deed, but the Trial Court had rightly observed that an agreement to sell is not a sale deed, but the fact that such agreement was executed and acted upon made Ram Chander a the fact that such agreement was executed and acted upon made Ram Chander a the fact that such agreement was executed and acted upon made Ram Chander a the fact that such agreement was executed and acted upon made Ram Chander a ppellate Court, necessary party to a proper adjudication of the matter. The Lower Appellate Court, necessary party to a proper adjudication of the matter. The Lower A necessary party to a proper adjudication of the matter. The Lower A however, failed to consider this and erred in rejecting the plea of non-joinder. however, failed to consider this and erred in rejecting the plea of non however, failed to consider this and erred in rejecting the plea of non 26. RSA, learned With respect to the two applications filed in the present RSA, learned With respect to the two applications filed in With respect to the two applications filed in counsel argued that the appellant sought to lead additional evidence under Order counsel argued that the appellant sought to lead additional evidence under Order counsel argued that the appellant sought to lead additional evidence under Order counsel argued that the appellant sought to lead additional evidence under Order Rule 27 to bring on record property IDs recently created by the Municipal 41 Rule 27 to bring on record property IDs recently created by the Municipal Rule 27 to bring on record property IDs recently created by the Municipal Rule 27 to bring on record property IDs recently created by the Municipal Authorities in Bhiwani. It was averred that the properties now bear new municipal Authorities in Bhiwani. It was averred that the properties now bear new municipal Authorities in Bhiwani. It was averred that the properties now bear new municipal Authorities in Bhiwani. It was averred that the properties now bear new municipal numbers, property ID of H.No.26 (suit property) and property ID of H.No.25, numbers, property ID of H.No.26 (suit property) and property ID of H.No.25 numbers, property ID of H.No.26 (suit property) and property ID of H.No.25 numbers, property ID of H.No.26 (suit property) and property ID of H.No.25 (adjoining house), and that these Gandhi Nagar, Krishna Colony, Bhiwani (adjoining house), and that these (adjoining house), and that these Gandhi Nagar, Krishna C documents contain complete description of the property. The appellant claimed documents contain complete description of the property. The appellant claimed documents contain complete description of the property. The appellant claimed documents contain complete description of the property. The appellant claimed that these property IDs were not available at the time of filing of the appeal in 1990 that these property IDs were not available at the time of filing of the appeal in 1990 that these property IDs were not available at the time of filing of the appeal in 1990 that these property IDs were not available at the time of filing of the appeal in 1990 and, therefore, cessary to identify the properties additional evidence was necessary to identify the properties cessary to identify the properties correctly and to assist the Court in reaching a just decision. correctly and to assist the Court in reaching a just decision. correctly and to assist the Court in reaching a just decision. 27. The second application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 The second application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 The second application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 The second application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 was filed seeking permission to raise an additional plea that the suit was not was filed seeking permission to raise an additional plea that the suit was not was filed seeking permission to raise an additional plea that the suit was not was filed seeking permission to raise an additional plea that the suit was not inable because the plaintiff sought declaration only in respect of one house maintainable because the plaintiff sought declaration only in respect of one house inable because the plaintiff sought declaration only in respect of one house inable because the plaintiff sought declaration only in respect of one house TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -9- - the present suit was and not the entire property left by the deceased, and, therefore, the present suit was and not the entire property left by the deceased, and and not the entire property left by the deceased, and bad for partial partition. It was submitted that this was a pure question of law bad for partial partition. It was submitted that this was a pure question of law bad for partial partition. It was submitted that this was a pure question of law bad for partial partition. It was submitted that this was a pure question of law be raised at any stage and that the interest of justice required the Court which could be raised at any stage and that the interest of justice required the Court be raised at any stage and that the interest of justice required the Court be raised at any stage and that the interest of justice required the Court to permit the appellant to raise this additional ground. to permit the appellant to raise this additional ground. to permit the appellant to raise this additional ground. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent 28. nt contended that the entire Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the entire Learned counsel for the responde Learned counsel for the responde foundation of the appellant’s case was beyond the pleadings and that the only foundation of the appellant’s case was beyond the pleadings and that the only foundation of the appellant’s case was beyond the pleadings and that the only foundation of the appellant’s case was beyond the pleadings and that the only controversy in RSA relates to the correctness of the findings of the Lower controversy in RSA relates to the correctness of the findings of the Lower controversy in RSA relates to the correctness of the findings of the Lower controversy in RSA relates to the correctness of the findings of the Lower held that Appellate Court on Issue No.3. It was argued that the Trial Court clearly held that Appellate Court on Issue No.3. It was argued that the Trial Court clearly Appellate Court on Issue No.3. It was argued that the Trial Court clearly each legal heir had 1/6th share in the property left by Ram Kishan and that the each legal heir had 1/6th share in the property left by Ram Kishan and that the each legal heir had 1/6th share in the property left by Ram Kishan and that the each legal heir had 1/6th share in the property left by Ram Kishan and that the plaintiff, being a male heir, had the right to claim partition under law. The Trial plaintiff, being a male heir, had the right to claim partition under law. The Trial plaintiff, being a male heir, had the right to claim partition under law. The Trial plaintiff, being a male heir, had the right to claim partition under law. The Trial Court mistakenly treated the suit as one filed by daughters and wrongly applied Court mistakenly treated the suit as one filed by daughters and wrongly applied Court mistakenly treated the suit as one filed by daughters and wrongly applied Court mistakenly treated the suit as one filed by daughters and wrongly applied ction 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, but the Lower Appellate Court corrected Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, but the Lower Appellate Court corrected ction 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, but the Lower Appellate Court corrected ction 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, but the Lower Appellate Court corrected this error by applying the correct interpretation of Section 23, which prohibits only this error by applying the correct interpretation of Section 23, which prohibits only this error by applying the correct interpretation of Section 23, which prohibits only this error by applying the correct interpretation of Section 23, which prohibits only female heirs from seeking partition of the dwelling house but does not bar a male female heirs from seeking partition of the dwelling house but does not bar a male female heirs from seeking partition of the dwelling house but does not bar a male female heirs from seeking partition of the dwelling house but does not bar a male settled, and the Lower respondent argued that this legal position is well-settled, and the Lower respondent argued that this legal position is well heir. The respondent argued that this legal position is well Appellate Court rightly relied on judgments such as Janabai Ammal’s c Appellate Court rightly relied on judgments such as Appellate Court rightly relied on judgments such as case (supra) and Sar roj Kumar Mondal’s case (supr , holding that where the partition ra), holding that where the partition is sought by a male heir, the bar under Section 23 does not apply. is sought by a male heir, the bar under Section 23 does no is sought by a male heir, the bar under Section 23 does no 29. Lea arned counsel for the responde also submitted that the plea of ent also submitted that the plea of partial partition is wholly misconceived. It was contended that no document was partial partition is wholly misconceived. It was contended that no document was partial partition is wholly misconceived. It was contended that no document was partial partition is wholly misconceived. It was contended that no document was placed on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased owned any other placed on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased owned any other placed on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased owned any other placed on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased owned any other other house was jointly owned and property besides the suit house or that any other house was jointly owned and other house was jointly owned and property besides the suit house or that any available for partition. Mere assertions without proof cannot make the suit available for partition. Mere assertions without proof cannot make the suit available for partition. Mere assertions without proof cannot make the suit available for partition. Mere assertions without proof cannot make the suit defective. The respondent further argued that the burden lay on the appellant to defective. The respondent further argued that the burden lay on the appellant to defective. The respondent further argued that the burden lay on the appellant to defective. The respondent further argued that the burden lay on the appellant to scharge before the prove existence of other joint properties, which he failed to discharge before the prove existence of other joint properties, which he failed to di prove existence of other joint properties, which he failed to di TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -10- - Trial Court, before the Lower Appellate Court, and even at the stage of RSA. The Trial Court, before the Lower Appellate Court, and even at the stage of RSA. The Trial Court, before the Lower Appellate Court, and even at the stage of RSA. The Trial Court, before the Lower Appellate Court, and even at the stage of RSA. The additional plea now sought to be raised was neither supported by any evidence nor additional plea now sought to be raised was neither supported by any evidence nor additional plea now sought to be raised was neither supported by any evidence nor additional plea now sought to be raised was neither supported by any evidence nor taken at any earlier stage, and thus cannot be allowed at this late stage. taken at any earlier stage, and thus cannot be allowed at this late stage. taken at any earlier stage, and thus cannot be allowed at this late stage. 30. On the question of identity of the property, it was argued that the suit On the question of identity of the property, it was argued that the suit On the question of identity of the property, it was argued that the suit On the question of identity of the property, it was argued that the suit property has always been clearly identified and described in the plaint and in the property has always been clearly identified and described in the plaint and in the property has always been clearly identified and described in the plaint and in the property has always been clearly identified and described in the plaint and in the evidence. All along there has been no dispute that deceased Ram Kishan owned evidence. All along there has been no dispute that deceased Ram Kishan owned evidence. All along there has been no dispute that deceased Ram Kishan owned evidence. All along there has been no dispute that deceased Ram Kishan owned he house in dispute is the one in occupation of defendants two houses and that the house in dispute is the one in occupation of defendants he house in dispute is the one in occupation of defendants two houses and that t 135 as No.3 to 6. Whether the house number is recorded as YA-124 or YA-135 as No.3 to 6. Whether the house number is recorded as YA No.3 to 6. Whether the house number is recorded as YA mentioned in Mark B, the identity of the property remains the same and has never mentioned in Mark B, the identity of the property remains the same and has never mentioned in Mark B, the identity of the property remains the same and has never mentioned in Mark B, the identity of the property remains the same and has never the additional evidence sought to be been contested by the defendants. Therefore, the additional evidence sought to be the additional evidence sought to be been contested by the defendants. Therefore, led by producing property IDs is wholly unnecessary and cannot change the nature led by producing property IDs is wholly unnecessary and cannot change the nature led by producing property IDs is wholly unnecessary and cannot change the nature led by producing property IDs is wholly unnecessary and cannot change the nature of the property or the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent of the property or the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent of the property or the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent of the property or the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. The respondent se of the process of the argued that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is a misuse of the process of the argued that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is a misu argued that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is a misu Court because additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill lacunae or introduce Court because additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill lacunae or introduce Court because additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill lacunae or introduce Court because additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill lacunae or introduce new facts which were never an issue in the case. new facts which were never an issue in the case. new facts which were never an issue in the case. 31. reasoned and The findings of the Lower Appellate Court are well-reasoned and The findings of the Lower Appellate Court are well The findings of the Lower Appellate Court are well cation of law. The appellant’s applications based on evidence and correct application of law. The appellant’s applications cation of law. The appellant’s applications based on evidence and correct appli under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC do not satisfy the statutory under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC do not satisfy the statutory under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC do not satisfy the statutory under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC do not satisfy the statutory requirements and deserve to be dismissed. It was prayed that both the applications requirements and deserve to be dismissed. It was prayed that both the applications requirements and deserve to be dismissed. It was prayed that both the applications requirements and deserve to be dismissed. It was prayed that both the applications as well as the RSA be dismissed. as well as the RSA be dismissed. Findings of this s Court 32. defendants that the plaint does not It is the case for the appellant-defendants that the plaint does not defendants that the plaint does not It is the case for the a disclose a proper cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable since it seeks disclose a proper cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable since it seeks disclose a proper cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable since it seeks disclose a proper cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable since it seeks a declaration as to joint ownership qua only one of the properties left by the a declaration as to joint ownership qua only one of the properties left by the a declaration as to joint ownership qua only one of the properties left by the a declaration as to joint ownership qua only one of the properties left by the uded other properties while seeking a deceased, and that the plaintiff has not included other properties while seeking a uded other properties while seeking a deceased, and that the plaintiff has not incl declaration. Learned counsel for the appellant points to evidence and documents or declaration. Learned counsel for the appellant points to evidence and documents declaration. Learned counsel for the appellant points to evidence and documents declaration. Learned counsel for the appellant points to evidence and documents TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -11- - agreements to c that some portion of the estate had been the subject matter contend that some portion of the estate had been the subject matter that some portion of the estate had been the subject matter rsons are necessary parties. of an agreement/sale and that such persons are necessary parties. of an agreement/sale and that such pe 33. These preliminary contentions were raised before the Trial Court by These preliminary contentions were raised before the Trial Court by These preliminary contentions were raised before the Trial Court by These preliminary contentions were raised before the Trial Court by the defendants in their written statement and were considered by that Court. The the defendants in their written statement and were considered by that Court. The the defendants in their written statement and were considered by that Court. The the defendants in their written statement and were considered by that Court. The Trial Court recorded the factual position Ram Kishan had purchased the plot t recorded the factual position that Ram Kishan had purchased the plot Ram Kishan had purchased the plot and constructed houses, upon his death the property devolved upon his heirs and constructed houses roperty devolved upon his heirs, the plaintiff and defendants were legal heirs the plaintiff’s plea of having 1/6th share and defendants were legal heirs, the plaintiff’s plea of having 1/6th share the plaintiff’s plea of having 1/6th share was accepted on the material on record and no convincing evidence was led to was accepted on the material on record and no convincing evidence was led to was accepted on the material on record and no convincing evidence was led to was accepted on the material on record and no convincing evidence was led to he plaintiff had sold any portion of the property. The Trial Court also prove that the plaintiff had sold any portion of the property. The Trial Court also he plaintiff had sold any portion of the property. The Trial Court also he plaintiff had sold any portion of the property. The Trial Court also observed that no sale deed relevant to the disputed house was produced observed that no sale deed relevant to where the disputed house was produced, where merely an agreement or alleged sale was not acted upon and no sale deed was merely an agreement or alleged sale was not acted upon and no sale deed was merely an agreement or alleged sale was not acted upon and no sale deed was merely an agreement or alleged sale was not acted upon and no sale deed was not be treated as an effective alienation to oust the executed, such assertion could not be treated as an effective alienation to oust the not be treated as an effective alienation to oust the executed, such assertion could plaintiff from claiming his share. These findings were recorded after perusal of plaintiff from claiming his share. These findings were recorded after perusal of plaintiff from claiming his share. These findings were recorded after perusal of plaintiff from claiming his share. These findings were recorded after perusal of Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and other material and upon hearing the witnesses. Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and other material and upon hearing the witnesses. Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and other material and upon hearing the witnesses. 34. der and The Lower Appellate Court examined the pleading of non-joinder and The Lower Appellate Court examined the plead The Lower Appellate Court examined the plead the alleged sale in favour of one Ram Chander and concluded that mere agreement the alleged sale in favour of one Ram Chander and concluded that mere agreement the alleged sale in favour of one Ram Chander and concluded that mere agreement the alleged sale in favour of one Ram Chander and concluded that mere agreement does not amount to a completed sale and that no sale deed had been executed nor does not amount to a completed sale and that no sale deed had been executed nor does not amount to a completed sale and that no sale deed had been executed nor does not amount to a completed sale and that no sale deed had been executed nor any suit filed by the alleged purchaser. The Appellate Court therefore held that any suit filed by the alleged purchaser. The Appellate Court therefore held that any suit filed by the alleged purchaser. The Appellate Court therefore held that any suit filed by the alleged purchaser. The Appellate Court therefore held that nder of Ram Chander was not a ground to dismiss the appeal or disturb the non-joinder of Ram Chander was not a ground to dismiss the appeal or disturb the nder of Ram Chander was not a ground to dismiss the appeal or disturb the nder of Ram Chander was not a ground to dismiss the appeal or disturb the rights of parties on the record. rights of parties on the record. 35. On careful consideration of the entire material, this Court finds On careful consideration of the entire material On careful consideration of the entire material no reason to take a different view. Where the record discloses that no completed sale reason to take a different view. Where the record discloses that no completed sale reason to take a different view. Where the record discloses that no completed sale reason to take a different view. Where the record discloses that no completed sale was produced and where the alleged purchaser has taken no step to assert his deed was produced and where the alleged purchaser has taken no step to assert his was produced and where the alleged purchaser has taken no step to assert his was produced and where the alleged purchaser has taken no step to assert his does not in the circumstances go interest or seek to be made a party, the omission, does not in the circumstances go interest or seek to be made a party, the omission, interest or seek to be made a party, the omission, cifically to the root of jurisdiction or maintainability. The Trial Court specifically to the root of jurisdiction or maintainability. The Trial Court spe to the root of jurisdiction or maintainability. The Trial Court spe considered and negatived the plea that the plaintiff had sold his share considered and negatived the plea that the his finding plaintiff had sold his share. This finding TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -12- - is supported by the absence of a sale deed and the evidence on record. The Lower is supported by the absence of a sale deed and the evidence on record. The Lower is supported by the absence of a sale deed and the evidence on record. The Lower is supported by the absence of a sale deed and the evidence on record. The Lower by any Appellate Court’s conclusion in this respect is not perverse nor is it vitiated by any Appellate Court’s conclusion in this respect is not perverse nor is it vitiated Appellate Court’s conclusion in this respect is not perverse nor is it vitiated appreciation of evidence. Accordingly the preliminary objections on cause of mis-appreciation of evidence. Accordingly the preliminary objections on cause of appreciation of evidence. Accordingly the preliminary objections on cause of appreciation of evidence. Accordingly the preliminary objections on cause of action, non-joinder and maintainability joinder and maintainability, on the specific factual matrix cannot on the specific factual matrix, cannot sustain the present challenge. sustain the present challenge. 36. n that the suit A central plank of the appellant’s case is the submission that the suit A central plank of the appellant’s case is the submissio A central plank of the appellant’s case is the submissio is bad for “partial partition”. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the is bad for “partial partition”. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the is bad for “partial partition”. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the is bad for “partial partition”. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff admitted in pleadings the existence of two houses left by Ram Kishan and plaintiff admitted in pleadings the existence of two houses left by Ram Kishan and plaintiff admitted in pleadings the existence of two houses left by Ram Kishan and plaintiff admitted in pleadings the existence of two houses left by Ram Kishan and that declaration of joint ownership should have been sought qua the entire that declaration of joint ownership should have been sought qua the entire that declaration of joint ownership should have been sought qua the entire that declaration of joint ownership should have been sought qua the entire seeking relief qua only one property renders the plaint defective and properties and seeking relief qua only one property renders the plaint defective and seeking relief qua only one property renders the plaint defective and seeking relief qua only one property renders the plaint defective and not maintainable. This plea was formulated again as an additional ground sought to not maintainable. This plea was formulated again as an additional ground sought to not maintainable. This plea was formulated again as an additional ground sought to not maintainable. This plea was formulated again as an additional ground sought to be raised in this RSA by way of application und be raised in this RSA by way of Section 151 read with Order 41 der Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 CPC. 37. Court dealt with the scope of Section 23 of the The Lower Appellate Court dealt with the scope of Section 23 of the Court dealt with the scope of Section 23 of the The Lower Appellate Hindu Succession Act and the distinction between the rights of male and female Hindu Succession Act and the distinction between the rights of male and female Hindu Succession Act and the distinction between the rights of male and female Hindu Succession Act and the distinction between the rights of male and female heirs in respect of partition of a dwelling house. It relied on decisions recorded in heirs in respect of partition of a dwelling house. It relied on decisions recorded in heirs in respect of partition of a dwelling house. It relied on decisions recorded in heirs in respect of partition of a dwelling house. It relied on decisions recorded in the judgments J Janabai Ammal’s case (supra) ) and Saroj Kumar Mondal’s c case and held that Section 23 is a special provision designed to postpone the (supra) and held that Section 23 is a special provision designed to postpone the and held that Section 23 is a special provision designed to postpone the and held that Section 23 is a special provision designed to postpone the right of female heirs to seek partition of a dwelling house where male heirs elect to right of female heirs to seek partition of a dwelling house where male heirs elect to right of female heirs to seek partition of a dwelling house where male heirs elect to right of female heirs to seek partition of a dwelling house where male heirs elect to striction is applicable to female keep the property joint. It concluded that such restriction is applicable to female keep the property joint. It concluded that such re keep the property joint. It concluded that such re heirs and does not preclude a male heir from claiming partition. On that basis the heirs and does not preclude a male heir from claiming partition. On that basis the heirs and does not preclude a male heir from claiming partition. On that basis the heirs and does not preclude a male heir from claiming partition. On that basis the Court found that the Trial Court erred in declining partition and therefore set aside Court found that the Trial Court erred in declining partition and therefore set aside Court found that the Trial Court erred in declining partition and therefore set aside Court found that the Trial Court erred in declining partition and therefore set aside that part of its order. that part of its order. 38. is manifest from the language and legislative scheme of Section 23 is manifest from the language and legislative scheme of Section 2 is manifest from the language and legislative scheme of Section 2 It is manifest from the language and legislative scheme of Section 2 that the statutory restriction is designed to protect the dwelling interest against that the statutory restriction is designed to protect the dwelling interest against that the statutory restriction is designed to protect the dwelling interest against that the statutory restriction is designed to protect the dwelling interest against fragmentation by married daughters where the heir seeking partition is a male heir, gmentation by married daughters, where the heir seeking partition is a male heir, where the heir seeking partition is a male heir, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -13- - there is no statutory bar. The Trial Court’s treatment of the matter as if the suit had there is no statutory bar. The Trial Court’s treatment of the matter as if the suit h there is no statutory bar. The Trial Court’s treatment of the matter as if the suit h there is no statutory bar. The Trial Court’s treatment of the matter as if the suit h been filed by daughters was, in this Court’s view, based upon a misapprehension of been filed by daughters was, in this Court’s view, based upon a misapprehension of been filed by daughters was, in this Court’s view, based upon a misapprehension of been filed by daughters was, in this Court’s view, based upon a misapprehension of the pleadings and of the identity of the claimant. The Lower Appellate Court the pleadings and of the identity of the claimant. The Lower Appellate Court the pleadings and of the identity of the claimant. The Lower Appellate Court the pleadings and of the identity of the claimant. The Lower Appellate Court rightly directed attention to this aspect and to the authorities which confine the rightly directed attention to this aspect and to the authorities which confine the rightly directed attention to this aspect and to the authorities which confine the rightly directed attention to this aspect and to the authorities which confine the find fault of Section 23. On this legal proposition, this Court does not find fault of Section 23. On this legal proposition operation of Section 23. On this legal proposition with the view taken by the Lower Appellate Court. with the view taken by the Lower Appellate Court. with the view taken by the Lower Appellate Court. 39. On the second point the contention that a party cannot claim On the second point the contention that a party cannot claim On the second point the contention that a party cannot claim On the second point the contention that a party cannot claim declaration qua one property when other properties remain unclaimed is not an declaration qua one property when other properties remain unclaimed is not an declaration qua one property when other properties remain unclaimed is not an declaration qua one property when other properties remain unclaimed is not an ute rule of law but depends on whether the property in question is properly absolute rule of law but depends on whether the property in question is properly ute rule of law but depends on whether the property in question is properly ute rule of law but depends on whether the property in question is properly described, whether the plaintiff pleaded his case consistently and whether the described, whether the plaintiff pleaded his case consistently and whether the described, whether the plaintiff pleaded his case consistently and whether the described, whether the plaintiff pleaded his case consistently and whether the sharers. In omission to include other properties adversely affects the rights of co-sharers. In omission to include other properties adversely affects the rights of co omission to include other properties adversely affects the rights of co the plaint and evidence consistently describe the house in dispute the present case the plaint and evidence consistently describe the house in dispute the plaint and evidence consistently describe the house in dispute the present case and the plaintiff’s possession and claim here was no reliable proof placed before laintiff’s possession and claim. There was no reliable proof placed before here was no reliable proof placed before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court showing that other properties were being the Trial Court or the Appellate Court showing that other properties were being the Trial Court or the Appellate Court showing that other properties were being the Trial Court or the Appellate Court showing that other properties were being and that their omission would result in an injustice. Mere treated as joint property and that their omission would result in an injustice. Mere and that their omission would result in an injustice. Mere treated as joint property assertion that other properties exist is not enough to vitiate a suit where the dispute assertion that other properties exist is not enough to vitiate a suit where the disput assertion that other properties exist is not enough to vitiate a suit where the disput assertion that other properties exist is not enough to vitiate a suit where the disput concerns a specifically described dwelling house. The appellant had the concerns a specifically described dwelling house. The appellant had the concerns a specifically described dwelling house. The appellant had the concerns a specifically described dwelling house. The appellant had the nd before the Appellate Court to produce proof of opportunity at the Trial Court and before the Appellate Court to produce proof of nd before the Appellate Court to produce proof of opportunity at the Trial Court a partition such other properties being joint and to press the non-joinder/partial-partition such other properties being joint and to press the non such other properties being joint and to press the non that opportunity was not successfully availed of. In these circumstances the point, that opportunity was not successfully availed of. In these circumstances the that opportunity was not successfully availed of. In these circumstances the that opportunity was not successfully availed of. In these circumstances the me in RSA cannot be permitted to overthrow raising of the objection for the first time in RSA cannot be permitted to overthrow me in RSA cannot be permitted to overthrow raising of the objection for the first ti the settled facts and findings of the courts below. the settled facts and findings of the courts below. the settled facts and findings of the courts below. 40. not persuaded that the present suit is For these reasons this Court is not persuaded that the present suit is not persuaded that the present suit is For these reasons bad for partial partition in law or fact so as to warrant interference with the bad for partial partition in law or fact so as to warrant interference with the bad for partial partition in law or fact so as to warrant interference with the bad for partial partition in law or fact so as to warrant interference with the Appellate Court’s judgment. Appellate Court’s TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -14- - 41. The appellant seeks to lead municipal Property ID documents now The appellant seeks to lead municipal Property ID documents now The appellant seeks to lead municipal Property ID documents now The appellant seeks to lead municipal Property ID documents now created for the urban properties and contends that these documents were not created for the urban properties and contends that these documents were not created for the urban properties and contends that these documents were not created for the urban properties and contends that these documents were not fresh evidence. The appellant urges that the available in 1990 and are, therefore, fresh evidence. The appellant urges that the fresh evidence. The appellant urges that the available in 1990 and are Property IDs bear comprehensive descriptions and would assist in correct Property IDs bear comprehensive descriptions and would assist in correct Property IDs bear comprehensive descriptions and would assist in correct Property IDs bear comprehensive descriptions and would assist in correct identification of the suit property and the adjoining house. identification of the suit property and the adjoining house. identification of the suit property and the adjoining house. 42. ever in The respondent’s case is that identity of the suit property was never in The respondent’s case is that identity of the suit property was n The respondent’s case is that identity of the suit property was n dispute, that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly identified the dispute, that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly identified the dispute, that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly identified the dispute, that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly identified the property from the evidence and marks relied upon at the trial, and that municipal property from the evidence and marks relied upon at the trial, and that municipal property from the evidence and marks relied upon at the trial, and that municipal property from the evidence and marks relied upon at the trial, and that municipal numbering or the creation of property IDs in more recent times cannot alter the numbering or the creation of property IDs in more recent times cannot alter the numbering or the creation of property IDs in more recent times cannot alter the numbering or the creation of property IDs in more recent times cannot alter the ntity or the rights adjudicated upon. The respondent further contends that the identity or the rights adjudicated upon. The respondent further contends that the ntity or the rights adjudicated upon. The respondent further contends that the ntity or the rights adjudicated upon. The respondent further contends that the production of these documents is unnecessary and will serve only to introduce production of these documents is unnecessary and will serve only to introduce production of these documents is unnecessary and will serve only to introduce production of these documents is unnecessary and will serve only to introduce peripheral technicalities. peripheral technicalities. 43. Order 41 Rule 27 allows the Appellate Court to frame its own view on Order 41 Rule 27 allows the Appellate Court to frame its own view on Order 41 Rule 27 allows the Appellate Court to frame its own view on Order 41 Rule 27 allows the Appellate Court to frame its own view on ether additional evidence is receivable, bearing in mind whether the evidence is whether additional evidence is receivable, bearing in mind whether the evidence is ether additional evidence is receivable, bearing in mind whether the evidence is ether additional evidence is receivable, bearing in mind whether the evidence is fresh, could not be produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and whether it is fresh, could not be produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and whether it is fresh, could not be produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and whether it is fresh, could not be produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and whether it is relevant to the real controversy. In the present case the Property IDs admittedly relevant to the real controversy. In the present case the Property IDs admittedly relevant to the real controversy. In the present case the Property IDs admittedly relevant to the real controversy. In the present case the Property IDs admittedly post-date the original proceedings however, it is also plain that the identification he original proceedings, however, it is also plain that the identification however, it is also plain that the identification and description of the disputed house was always part of the trial evidence and was and description of the disputed house was always part of the trial evidence and was and description of the disputed house was always part of the trial evidence and was and description of the disputed house was always part of the trial evidence and was never the subject of a genuine controversy between the parties. The material on never the subject of a genuine controversy between the parties. The material on never the subject of a genuine controversy between the parties. The material on never the subject of a genuine controversy between the parties. The material on s that the father, Ram Kishan, had constructed the house and that record establishes that the father, Ram Kishan, had constructed the house and that s that the father, Ram Kishan, had constructed the house and that record establishe the house in dispute was in the possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and that the house in dispute was in the possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and that the house in dispute was in the possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and that the house in dispute was in the possession of defendants No.3 to 6 and that plaintiff’s symbolic possession remained. The Lower Appellate Court considered plaintiff’s symbolic possession remained. The Lower Appellate Court considered plaintiff’s symbolic possession remained. The Lower Appellate Court considered plaintiff’s symbolic possession remained. The Lower Appellate Court considered usion that the identity of the property is these aspects and came to the conclusion that the identity of the property is usion that the identity of the property is these aspects and came to the concl correctly established and that recent municipal numbering does not change the correctly established and that recent municipal numbering does not change the correctly established and that recent municipal numbering does not change the correctly established and that recent municipal numbering does not change the nature or identity of the property so as to affect substantive rights. nature or identity of the property so as to affect substantive rights. nature or identity of the property so as to affect substantive rights. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -15- - 44. I have carefully considered the documents tendered as annexures to I have carefully considered the documents tendered as annexures I have carefully considered the documents tendered as annexures I have carefully considered the documents tendered as annexures the petition for additional evidence. Even if the Court were to receive those the petition for additional evidence. Even if the Court were to receive those the petition for additional evidence. Even if the Court were to receive those the petition for additional evidence. Even if the Court were to receive those documents, I am satisfied that they would not have any material bearing on the documents, I am satisfied that they would not have any material bearing on the documents, I am satisfied that they would not have any material bearing on the documents, I am satisfied that they would not have any material bearing on the core question which decides the rights of the parties, namely whether the plaintiff, core question which decides the rights of the parties, namely whether the plaintiff, core question which decides the rights of the parties, namely whether the plaintiff, core question which decides the rights of the parties, namely whether the plaintiff, le heir, could maintain partition/declaration and whether the defendants being a male heir, could maintain partition/declaration and whether the defendants le heir, could maintain partition/declaration and whether the defendants le heir, could maintain partition/declaration and whether the defendants had validly ousted the plaintiff by any proved alienation. The additional property had validly ousted the plaintiff by any proved alienation. The additional property had validly ousted the plaintiff by any proved alienation. The additional property had validly ousted the plaintiff by any proved alienation. The additional property ID evidence is therefore of cumulative or purely formal value and would not alter ID evidence is therefore of cumulative or purely formal value and would not alter ID evidence is therefore of cumulative or purely formal value and would not alter ID evidence is therefore of cumulative or purely formal value and would not alter t or law in the appeal. In such circumstances the Court should not any finding of fact or law in the appeal. In such circumstances the Court should not t or law in the appeal. In such circumstances the Court should not any finding of fac exercise its discretion to permit additional evidence at this late stage. Accordingly exercise its discretion to permit additional evidence at this late stage. Accordingly exercise its discretion to permit additional evidence at this late stage. Accordingly exercise its discretion to permit additional evidence at this late stage. Accordingly is dismissed. the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is dismissed. the application under Order 41 Rule 27 45. plea that the plaintiff The appellant sought leave to raise an additional plea that the plaintiff The appellant sought leave to raise an additional The appellant sought leave to raise an additional cannot claim declaration of joint ownership qua only a single property left by his cannot claim declaration of joint ownership qua only a single property left by his cannot claim declaration of joint ownership qua only a single property left by his cannot claim declaration of joint ownership qua only a single property left by his father and that the suit is thus bad for partial partition. Section 151 and Order 41 father and that the suit is thus bad for partial partition. Section 151 and Order 41 father and that the suit is thus bad for partial partition. Section 151 and Order 41 father and that the suit is thus bad for partial partition. Section 151 and Order 41 new and Rule 2 are not a roving commission to permit the introduction of new and Rule 2 are not a roving commission to permit the introduction of Rule 2 are not a roving commission to permit the introduction of substantial pleas or grounds at a belated stage which could have been and ought to substantial pleas or grounds at a belated stage which could have been and ought to substantial pleas or grounds at a belated stage which could have been and ought to substantial pleas or grounds at a belated stage which could have been and ought to have been raised earlier. The Court must be satisfied that the proposed ground is have been raised earlier. The Court must be satisfied that the proposed ground is have been raised earlier. The Court must be satisfied that the proposed ground is have been raised earlier. The Court must be satisfied that the proposed ground is one which arises inevitably on the record and that it would be in the interests of one which arises inevitably on the record and that it would be in the interests of one which arises inevitably on the record and that it would be in the interests of one which arises inevitably on the record and that it would be in the interests of justice to permit it. justice to permit it. 46. As noted earlier, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had an As noted earlier, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had an As noted earlier, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had an As noted earlier, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had an opportunity to and in fact did consider the pleadings and the evidence with respect opportunity to and in fact did consider the pleadings and the evidence with respect opportunity to and in fact did consider the pleadings and the evidence with respect opportunity to and in fact did consider the pleadings and the evidence with respect to the number of properties and the nature of the claim. The appellant cannot show to the number of properties and the nature of the claim. The appellant cannot show to the number of properties and the nature of the claim. The appellant cannot show to the number of properties and the nature of the claim. The appellant cannot show sufficient cause why this distinct legal plea was not advanced and adduced at the sufficient cause why this distinct legal plea was not advanced and adduced at the sufficient cause why this distinct legal plea was not advanced and adduced at the sufficient cause why this distinct legal plea was not advanced and adduced at the proper stage. Even were the plea permitted, the fundamental difficulty for the proper stage. Even were the plea permitted, the fundamental difficulty for the proper stage. Even were the plea permitted, the fundamental difficulty for the proper stage. Even were the plea permitted, the fundamental difficulty for the appellant is absence of material to demonstrate that omission of other properties appellant is absence of material to demonstrate that omission of other properties appellant is absence of material to demonstrate that omission of other properties appellant is absence of material to demonstrate that omission of other properties nt caused any miscarriage of justice with respect to the suit property. from the plaint caused any miscarriage of justice with respect to the suit property. nt caused any miscarriage of justice with respect to the suit property. nt caused any miscarriage of justice with respect to the suit property. The record does not contain proof of any exclusive ownership claim over other The record does not contain proof of any exclusive ownership claim over other The record does not contain proof of any exclusive ownership claim over other The record does not contain proof of any exclusive ownership claim over other TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2117-1990 1990 (O&M) -16- - properties by the appellant which could have fatal effect on the present suit. In properties by the appellant which could have fatal effect on the present suit. In properties by the appellant which could have fatal effect on the present suit. In properties by the appellant which could have fatal effect on the present suit. In short, the proposed additional ground is speculative and cannot succeed short, the proposed addi allowing speculative and cannot succeed, allowing it would entail further remand and delay without any real prospect of changing the it would entail further remand and delay without any real prospect of changing the it would entail further remand and delay without any real prospect of changing the it would entail further remand and delay without any real prospect of changing the result. 47. Therefore the application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule Therefore the application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule Therefore the application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule Therefore the application under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 CPC for raising the plea of “partial par tition” is refused. for raising the plea of “partial partition” is refused. Conclusion 48.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, this Cou For the foregoing reasons urt concludes as under:- (a) Court for The applications moved by the appellant in this High Court for The applications moved by the receiving additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and for receiving additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and for receiving additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and for receiving additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and for leave to raise additional ground under Section 151 read with Order 41 leave to raise additional ground under Section 151 read with Order 41 leave to raise additional ground under Section 151 read with Order 41 leave to raise additional ground under Section 151 read with Order 41 Rule 2 are dismissed. Rule 2 are dismissed. (b) The Regular Second Appeal is without substance and is dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal is without substance and is dismissed The Regular Second Appeal is without substance and is dismissed The judgment and decree dated 4.6.1990 of the learned Addl. District The judgment and decree dated 4.6.1990 of the learned Addl. District The judgment and decree dated 4.6.1990 of the learned Addl. District The judgment and decree dated 4.6.1990 of the learned Addl. District are hereby affirmed and shall stand. Judge, Bhiwani are hereby affirmed and shall stand. Judge, Bhiwani 49. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 December 10, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.10 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document