Jangir Kaur and Others Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur and v. Gurdev Singh alias Sukhdev Singh and Others Gurdev Singh alias Sukhdev Singh and
Case Details
2012 (O&M) RSA-3018-2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA-3018-2012 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: Reserved on:-25.08.2025 Date of Decision : 01.09.2025 Date of Decision : 01.09.2025 Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur and Others Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur and ....Appellants VERSUS Gurdev Singh alias Sukhdev Singh and Others Gurdev Singh alias Sukhdev Singh and Others ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for contesting respondent No.1. Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for contesting respondent No.1. Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for contesting respondent No.1. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the The present Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the The present Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the The present Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District
Legal Reasoning
Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff Judge, Faridkot, whereby the respondent No.1 was appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 17.03.2009 was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 17.03.2009 was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 17.03.2009 was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 17.03.2009 was respondent No.1 for partition to the extent of set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for partition to the extent of respondent No.1 for partition to the extent of set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff half share was decreed. one-half share was decreed. Brief facts 2. Gurdev Singh instituted a suit The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-Gurdev Singh instituted a suit The facts in brief are that the plaintiff The facts in brief are that the plaintiff half share in joint property for partition and separate possession of his one-half share in joint property for partition and separate possession of his one for partition and separate possession of his one measuring 46 kanals 16 marlas, being Gair Mumkin Abadi land situated in Patti measuring 46 kanals 16 marlas, being Gair Mumkin Abadi land situated in Patti measuring 46 kanals 16 marlas, being Gair Mumkin Abadi land situated in Patti measuring 46 kanals 16 marlas, being Gair Mumkin Abadi land situated in Patti sil Jaitu, District Faridkot, as per Jamabandi for the year Sada Thula Umra, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, as per Jamabandi for the year sil Jaitu, District Faridkot, as per Jamabandi for the year Sada Thula Umra, Teh sharer to the extent of half 2000. The case of the plaintiff was that he was co-sharer to the extent of half 2000. The case of the plaintiff was that he was co 1999-2000. The case of the plaintiff was that he was co share, while the remaining half belonged to Jang Singh. It was alleged that Jang share, while the remaining half belonged to Jang Singh. It was alleged that Jang share, while the remaining half belonged to Jang Singh. It was alleged that Jang share, while the remaining half belonged to Jang Singh. It was alleged that Jang his recorded share to several vendees and that such Singh had sold more land than his recorded share to several vendees and that such his recorded share to several vendees and that such Singh had sold more land than TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2012 (O&M) RSA-3018-2012 (O&M) -2- sales could not bind the plaintiff beyond Jang Singh’s half share. The plaintiff sales could not bind the plaintiff beyond Jang Singh’s half share. The plaintiff sales could not bind the plaintiff beyond Jang Singh’s half share. The plaintiff sales could not bind the plaintiff beyond Jang Singh’s half share. The plaintiff sought separation of his half share by metes and bounds. sought separation of his half share by metes and bounds. sought separation of his half share by metes and bounds. 3. The suit was contested by defendants no. 2 and 41. They raised The suit was contested by defendants no. 2 and 41. They raised The suit was contested by defendants no. 2 and 41. They raised The suit was contested by defendants no. 2 and 41. They raised joinder preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable on account of non-joinder preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable on account of non preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable on account of non of necessary parties, as all transferees from Jang Singh and their legal of necessary parties, as all transferees from Jang Singh and their legal of necessary parties, as all transferees from Jang Singh and their legal of necessary parties, as all transferees from Jang Singh and their legal representatives had not been impleaded. It was also pleaded that the suit was bad representatives had not been impleaded. It was also pleaded that the suit was bad representatives had not been impleaded. It was also pleaded that the suit was bad representatives had not been impleaded. It was also pleaded that the suit was bad ition, as the entire joint khata had not been brought into hotchpotch. for partial partition, as the entire joint khata had not been brought into hotchpotch. ition, as the entire joint khata had not been brought into hotchpotch. ition, as the entire joint khata had not been brought into hotchpotch. On merits, the plaintiff’s entitlement was denied and it was pleaded that Jang On merits, the plaintiff’s entitlement was denied and it was pleaded that Jang On merits, the plaintiff’s entitlement was denied and it was pleaded that Jang On merits, the plaintiff’s entitlement was denied and it was pleaded that Jang Singh had not sold more than his share. Singh had not sold more than his share. 4. llowing On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the fo On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the fo issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the separate possession by Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the separate possession by Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the separate possession by way of partition? OPP way of partition? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim for partition? Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim for partition? Whether the defendant is entitled to counter claim for partition? OPD-2. OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. lued properly for the purpose of court Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court lued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad on account of non joinder of parties and Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of parties and partial partition? OPD partial partition? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Cour 6. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that although the plaintiff had proved his half share, he could not be granted a decree although the plaintiff had proved his half share, he could not be granted a decree although the plaintiff had proved his half share, he could not be granted a decree although the plaintiff had proved his half share, he could not be granted a decree because necessary parties had not been impleaded. It was noticed that several because necessary parties had not been impleaded. It was noticed that several because necessary parties had not been impleaded. It was noticed that several because necessary parties had not been impleaded. It was noticed that several TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.03 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2012 (O&M) RSA-3018-2012 (O&M) -3- d their heirs were not impleaded. The suit was therefore transferees had died and their heirs were not impleaded. The suit was therefore d their heirs were not impleaded. The suit was therefore transferees had died an joinder of necessary parties, though the objection of held not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, though the objection of joinder of necessary parties, though the objection of held not maintainable for non partial partition was rejected. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 17.03.2009. partial partition was rejected. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 17.03.2009. partial partition was rejected. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 17.03.2009. partial partition was rejected. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 17.03.2009. Findings of the Appellate Court Findings of the Appellate Court 7. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, reversed On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, reversed On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, reversed On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, reversed the finding of the trial Court. It was held that defendants no. 1 to 3, being the heirs the finding of the trial Court. It was held that defendants no. 1 to 3, being the heirs the finding of the trial Court. It was held that defendants no. 1 to 3, being the heirs the finding of the trial Court. It was held that defendants no. 1 to 3, being the heirs of Jang Singh, adequately represented his estate and the interests of his transferees. of Jang Singh, adequately represented his estate and the interests of his transferees. of Jang Singh, adequately represented his estate and the interests of his transferees. of Jang Singh, adequately represented his estate and the interests of his transferees. Placing reliance upon reliance upon Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyawati, AIR 2002 SC 2180 , the Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vidyawati, AIR 2002 SC 2180, the lower appellate court held that the absence of individual transferees would not lower appellate court held that the absence of individual transferees would not lower appellate court held that the absence of individual transferees would not lower appellate court held that the absence of individual transferees would not render the suit incompetent. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was render the suit incompetent. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was render the suit incompetent. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was render the suit incompetent. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was half share in favour of the plaintiff. decreed to the extent of one-half share in favour of the plaintiff. decreed to the extent of 8. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur, Tarsem Singh and Harjinder Kaur. namely, Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur, Tarsem Singh and Harjinder Kaur. namely, Baldev Kaur alias Jangir Kaur, Tarsem Singh and Harjinder Kaur. 9. Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the Upon notice, contesting respondent No.1 appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions on behalf of the appellants/LRs of defendant No.2 Submissions on behalf of the appellants/LRs of defendant No.2 Submissions on behalf of the appellants/LRs of defendant No.2 10. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that
Legal Reasoning
not be sustained. It is contended that in the decree of the lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is contended that in not be sustained. It is contended that in the decree of the lower Appellate Court can sharers are necessary parties, and the subsequent a suit for partition, all co-sharers are necessary parties, and the subsequent sharers are necessary parties, and the subsequent a suit for partition, all co sharers in the purchasers from Jang Singh, having stepped into his shoes, were co-sharers in the purchasers from Jang Singh, having stepped into his shoes, were co purchasers from Jang Singh, having stepped into his shoes, were co t of their death, were also joint khata. Their legal representatives, in the event of their death, were also joint khata. Their legal representatives, in the even joint khata. Their legal representatives, in the even indispensable parties. It is submitted that without impleading such subsequent indispensable parties. It is submitted that without impleading such subsequent indispensable parties. It is submitted that without impleading such subsequent indispensable parties. It is submitted that without impleading such subsequent vendees, no executable decree could be passed. Reliance has been placed on vendees, no executable decree could be passed. Reliance has been placed on vendees, no executable decree could be passed. Reliance has been placed on vendees, no executable decree could be passed. Reliance has been placed on