Seeta Bai and Others v. Sadha Nand

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Seeta Bai (Since Sadha Nand (Sin

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi against the find whereby the sui decree of the le suit of the plaint Brief facts

2.

In b joint owner in p Bhiwani, to the No.1 Sita Bai plaintiff is the s THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

e Deceased) through LRs VERSUS nce deceased) through LRs ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Ajay K. Gupta, Advocate and r. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the r. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate r. Surinder Dhull, Advocate and r. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the -.-

ANNU, J. is Regular Second Appeal has be dings of the learned Lower A it of the plaintiff was decreed w earned Trial Court dated 21.03.1 tiff. brief, the facts of the case are t possession of the house in dispu e extent of 1/2 share. During th died and her legal representati son and defendant No.6 is the

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2117-1990 (O&M) served on:-02.12.2025 onounced on:- 10.12.2025 ploaded on:-10.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU appellants. e respondents. een filed by the appellant/defend Appellate Court dated 04.06.19 while modifying the judgment 1989, which had partly decreed that the plaintiff claimed to be ute bearing Municipal No.YA-1 he pendency of the suit, defend ives were brought on record. T daughter of deceased Ram Kish

- dant 124, dant

from his first w married again w defendants No.3 purchased the p house in questio and deceased Si to remain joint possession cont property by fabr No.2, which the filed. Defendant

3.

pleaded that th claimed that the executed by Ram No.2 according

4.

the suit property They contended property and th raised the pleas further asserted and that the suit

5.

¶1wife. After the demise of their with deceased defendant No.1 3 to 5 were born. It was averr plot vide registered sale deed dat on. Upon his death in 1965, the h ita Bai in equal shares, but since in possession, he shifted to an tinued. Alleging that Sita Bai w ricating an adoption deed dated e plaintiff alleged to be false and t No.6 admitted the claim of the e contesting defendants denied he plaintiff had already sold hi e entire house was bequeathed m Kishan. They further pleaded t to Hindu rites and thus he was e e stand of the defendants was th y as he had already sold his sha d that the answering defendants w hat deceased Sita Bai had lega of estoppel, mis-joinder of part that the house was not joint pr t was false and frivolous. e following issues were framed b Whether the plaintiff is joint house as fully described in the h

r mother, their father Ram Kish Sita Bai and from this wedl ed that deceased Ram Kishan h ted 29.11.1957 and constructed house was inherited by the plain e it was not possible for the plain nother house though his symbo was attempting to alienate the

21.01.1985 in favour of defend invalid, the suit for declaration w plaintiff. d the entitlement of the plaint is share in the suit property, to deceased Sita Bai under a W that Sita Bai had adopted defend entitled to the property. hat the plaintiff had no concern w are during the lifetime of Sita B were in exclusive possession of lly adopted defendant No.2. Th ties and lack of locus standi. It w roperty as claimed by the plaint by the learned Trial Court: owner in possession of 1/2 share heading of the plaint? OPP

- han ock had ntiff ntiff olic suit dant was tiff, Will dant with Bai. f the hey was tiff,

¶2def

3. OP

4. OP

5.

6.

¶7of c

¶8ent

9.

6.

Bot Findings of the

7.

On had purchased t and defendant N first wife. It wa time of the deat defendant No.6, property in acco share. The Trial possession of th Whether defendant No.2 i fendant No.1 as alleged? OPD Whether the plaintiff is entit PP Whether the plaintiff is ent PP Whether the plaintiff is estop d conduct? OPD Whether the suit is bad for m Whether the suit has not bee court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the suit is false an titled to special costs? If so, how Relief. th the parties have led oral and d e trial Court n issue No.1, the learned Trial Co the plot and constructed the hou No.6 were admittedly the children as further held that Sita Bai, the th of Ram Kishan and, therefor , as well as her own daughters (d ordance with Hindu Succession A l Court, therefore, concluded tha he house.

is not adopted son of decea led to the partition of the suit lan titled to the injunction prayed f pped from filing the suit by his mis-joinder of parties? OPD en valued properly for the purp nd frivolous and the defendants w much? OPD documentary evidence. ourt held that deceased Ram Kish use in dispute and that the plain n of deceased Ram Kishan from e second wife, was also alive at re, she along with the plaintiff defendants No.3 to 5), inherited Act and were each entitled to 1/ at the plaintiff was a joint owne

- ased nd? for? act pose are han ntiff his /6th

8.

On defendant No.2 show that decea had actually bee want of proof. T

9.

On found to have 1 house could not as the male he decided in favo prayer for partit

10.

On in possession of property to the favour of the pla

11.

Issu lead any evidenc

12.

On plaintiff to the e house described from alienating Findings of the

13.

Fee plaintiff filed an

14.

Trial Court and n issue No.2, the Trial Court f was not proved in accordance w ased Sita Bai had the competen en taken in adoption. The adopt The issue was, therefore, decided n issue No.3, the Trial Court he 1/6th share in the property, the t arise since the female heirs had irs chose to keep the property our of the plaintiff to the exten ion was not granted. n issue No.4, in view of the find f the house and that the defenda exclusion of the plaintiff, the aintiff restraining the defendants ues No.5 to 8 were decided agai ce in support of their objections. n the relief issue, the learned T extent that he was declared owne d in the head note of the plaint a the suit property. e lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the judgem n appeal before the lower appella e Lower Appellate Court exam d the evidence on record. It note

found that the alleged adoption with law. There was no evidence nce to adopt or that defendant N tion deed was held inadmissible d against the defendants. eld that although the plaintiff w question of partition of a dwell d no right to claim partition so lo y joint. The issue was accordin nt of recognising his share, but ding that the plaintiff was co-ow ants had no right to alienate the Trial Court granted injunction s from alienating the suit property inst the defendants as they failed

Trial Court decreed the suit of er in possession of 1/6th share of and restrained defendants No.3 t ment and decree of trial court, ate court. mined the judgment of the learn ed that the Trial Court had decr

- n of e to No.2 for was ling ong ngly wner suit n in y. d to f the to 5 ned

the suit of the injunction again Appellate Court

15.

the judgment of Issue No.1 conc misconception o Appellate Court by female heirs, partition. The T was entitled to defendants No.3

16.

Reg Court held that male heirs choo heirs. Since the the bar under S error by treating that the house in lifetime of Sita Sita Bai would permanent injun

17.

vs. TAS Palani heir has no righ keep it joint. It plaintiff partially by granting nst alienation, while declining t re-evaluated these findings. e Court observed that the learne f the Trial Court primarily on cerning share of the plaintiff, as of law. From the discussion of t that the Trial Court treated the s , whereas the present suit was fil Trial Court had held that Sadha N o partition and possession. The 3 to 6 were female heirs of Ram K garding Section 23 of the Hin female heirs cannot seek partiti se to keep it joint. However, this present suit for partition was fi Section 23 did not apply. Theref g the suit as if filed by female h n dispute was in possession of d Bai, she also resided in the ho alienate the property, therefore nction and partition. The suit was e Appellate Court referred to Ja Mudaliar and Others AIR 1981 ht to claim partition of a dwellin also cited Saroj Kumar Monda

a declaration of 1/6th share the relief of partition. The Low d counsel for the appellant assai Issue No.3 regarding partition serting misreading of evidence the Trial Court, it appeared to suit incorrectly as having been fi led by Sadha Nand, a male heir, Nand had 1/6th share and theref e Appellate Court confirmed t Kishan. ndu Succession Act, the Appel ion of a dwelling house so long s prohibition applies only to fem filed by the male heir, Sadha Na fore, the Trial Court committed heirs. The Appellate Court observ defendants No.3 to 6 and during use. Sadha Nand apprehended t e, he filed the suit for declarati s, therefore, held maintainable. anabai Ammal alias Gunaboosh 1 Madras 62 , holding that a fem g house when male heirs choose al (minor) vs Anil Kumar Mon

- wer iled filed for fore that late g as male and, d an ved that ion, hani male e to

and Others 197 provision restri Applying these heir, could main

18.

one in possessio dispute. Since th for partition a maintainable. T erroneous.

19.

On share of the hou not amount to a for enforcement non-joinder of R

20.

As Lower Appellat observations in respondents wh findings now.

21.

Aft that the Trial C injunction grant partition were s decree for partit 79 Hindu Law Reporter 237, sup cting only female heirs, not m precedents, the Court conclude ntain the suit for partition. e Court further held that Ram K on of Sadha Nand and another he suit was filed by Sadha Nan along with the declaratory re The Trial Court's findings de n the objection of the responden use to one Ram Chander, the Cou a completed sale, and since no s t was filed by Ram Chander, s Ram Chander was not fatal to the regards cross-objections filed te Court noted that these wer State of Bihar Vs. Jehal Mahto ho filed cross-objections unsu ter considering the entire matte Court erred in denying partition ted by the Trial Court were mai et aside. Consequently, the appe tion was ordered. No order was m

pporting that Section 23 is a spe male heirs, from seeking partiti d that Sadha Nand, being the m Kishan had left two dwelling hous r forming the subject matter of nd and not by female heirs, the elief and injunction was lega eclining partition were, therefo nts that Ram Kishan had sold h urt held that a mere agreement d sale deed was executed and no such a claim had no merit. Hen e suit. by the defendant–respondents, re dismissed, and in view of o and Others AIR 1964 Patna 2 uccessfully could not dispute r, the Lower Appellate Court h n. The declaration and perman intained, but the findings declin eal was accepted, and a prelimin made regarding costs.

- cial ion. male ses, suit ally ore, half does suit nce, 207, held nent ning

22.

Ag appellants/defen appeal, which w Submissions of

23.

Lea Lower Appellat from serious le Appellate Court the issue of part held that the s Succession Act right of partition the suit to be in Lower Appellat male heir and th the plaintiff sho all heirs.

24.

Lea maintainable as of one property, deceased Ram K partition must i which related on not plead that th that he was oc include all the p grieved by the judgment of le ndants approached this Court by was contested by the plaintiff/resp f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant te Court by submitting that the j gal and factual infirmities. It w t erred in reversing the well-reas tition, particularly Issue No.3, w suit was not maintainable in v and that the property being a dw n. It was further contended that n the nature of a partition claim te Court misdirected itself in ho herefore maintainable, although wed that he was seeking a decla arned counsel further argued the plaintiff sought a declaration , whereas the pleadings admitted Kishan. Since a person seeking include all joint properties left nly to one property, was bad fo he other house was exclusively ccupying more than his share properties of the deceased rend

arned Lower Appellate Court, y way of the present regular seco pondent. lant assailed the findings of the learn judgment dated 04.06.1990 suff was argued that the learned Low soned findings of the Trial Court where the Trial Court had correc view of Section 23 of the Hin welling house, the daughters had t the Trial Court had rightly trea brought by daughters, whereas olding that the suit was filed b the entire pleading and conduct aration for himself alone and not d that the suit itself was n of joint ownership only in resp d existence of two houses owned g declaration of joint ownership by the deceased, the present s or partial partition. The plaintiff in his possession nor did he all in any property. The omission dered the suit defective in law

- ond ned ffers wer t on ctly ndu d no ated by a t of for not pect d by p or suit, did lege

contrary to the s several propertie

25.

It w facts. The plain Bai, made admi sale deeds or ag of Ram Chande pleaded joint ow non-joinder of R the Trial Court h the fact that suc necessary party however, failed

26.

Wi counsel argued 41 Rule 27 to Authorities in B numbers, prope Gandhi Nagar, documents cont that these prope and, therefore, correctly and to

27.

was filed seeki maintainable be settled principle that a co-sharer es. was also argued that the plain ntiff had himself, in an earlier li issions regarding alienation by greements existed concerning po er, who was not impleaded as a wnership and other persons were Ram Chander constituted a fata had rightly observed that an agre ch agreement was executed and to a proper adjudication of the m to consider this and erred in reje th respect to the two application that the appellant sought to lea bring on record property IDs Bhiwani. It was averred that the p erty ID of H.No.26 (suit prope Krishna Colony, Bhiwani (a tain complete description of th rty IDs were not available at the additional evidence was nec assist the Court in reaching a ju e second application under Sect ing permission to raise an add ecause the plaintiff sought declar

cannot seek partition of only one ntiff deliberately withheld mate itigation titled Sadha Nand vs. S him or his father, and that cert rtions of the suit property in fav necessary party. Once the plain e claiming independent possessi al defect. The appellant argued t eement to sell is not a sale deed, d acted upon made Ram Chande matter. The Lower Appellate Co ecting the plea of non-joinder. ns filed in the present RSA, learn ad additional evidence under Or recently created by the Munici properties now bear new munici erty) and property ID of H.No. adjoining house), and that th he property. The appellant claim time of filing of the appeal in 19 cessary to identify the proper st decision. tion 151 read with Order 41 Rul ditional plea that the suit was ration only in respect of one ho

- e of erial Sita tain vour ntiff ion, that but er a ourt, ned rder ipal ipal .25, hese med rties le 2 not

and not the entir bad for partial which could be to permit the app Submissions of

28.

Lea foundation of t controversy in Appellate Court each legal heir plaintiff, being Court mistakenl Section 23 of th this error by app female heirs fro heir. The respon Appellate Cour (supra) and Sar is sought by a m

29.

Lea partial partition placed on recor property beside available for p defective. The r prove existence re property left by the deceased, partition. It was submitted tha raised at any stage and that the i pellant to raise this additional gr f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for the respon he appellant's case was beyon RSA relates to the correctne t on Issue No.3. It was argued th had 1/6th share in the property a male heir, had the right to cl ly treated the suit as one filed he Hindu Succession Act, but th plying the correct interpretation om seeking partition of the dwel ndent argued that this legal posi rt rightly relied on judgments roj Kumar Mondal's case (supr male heir, the bar under Section 2 arned counsel for the responde is wholly misconceived. It was rd by the appellant to prove th es the suit house or that any ot partition. Mere assertions with respondent further argued that of other joint properties, which

and, therefore, the present suit w at this was a pure question of interest of justice required the Co round. ndent ndent contended that the en nd the pleadings and that the o ess of the findings of the Low hat the Trial Court clearly held t y left by Ram Kishan and that laim partition under law. The T by daughters and wrongly appl he Lower Appellate Court correc of Section 23, which prohibits o lling house but does not bar a m ition is well-settled, and the Low such as Janabai Ammal's c ra), holding that where the partit 23 does not apply. ent also submitted that the plea s contended that no document w hat the deceased owned any ot ther house was jointly owned hout proof cannot make the the burden lay on the appellant h he failed to discharge before

- was law ourt ntire only wer that Trial lied cted only male wer case tion a of was ther suit

Trial Court, bef additional plea n taken at any earl

30.

On property has alw evidence. All al two houses and No.3 to 6. Wh mentioned in M been contested b led by producin of the property argued that the a Court because a new facts which

31.

based on evide under Order 4 requirements an as well as the RS Findings of this

32.

It i disclose a prope a declaration as deceased, and th declaration. Lea fore the Lower Appellate Court, now sought to be raised was nei lier stage, and thus cannot be all n the question of identity of the p ways been clearly identified and long there has been no dispute d that the house in dispute is th hether the house number is rec Mark B, the identity of the proper by the defendants. Therefore, th g property IDs is wholly unnece y or the findings of the Lower application under Order 41 Rule additional evidence cannot be pe h were never an issue in the case. e findings of the Lower Appe nce and correct application of 1 Rule 27 and Section 151 C nd deserve to be dismissed. It wa SA be dismissed. s Court is the case for the appellant-de er cause of action and that the su s to joint ownership qua only hat the plaintiff has not include arned counsel for the appellant p

and even at the stage of RSA. T ther supported by any evidence owed at this late stage. property, it was argued that the d described in the plaint and in that deceased Ram Kishan own he one in occupation of defenda corded as YA-124 or YA-135 rty remains the same and has ne he additional evidence sought to essary and cannot change the nat r Appellate Court. The respond 27 is a misuse of the process of ermitted to fill lacunae or introd . ellate Court are well-reasoned f law. The appellant's applicati CPC do not satisfy the statut as prayed that both the applicati efendants that the plaint does uit is not maintainable since it se one of the properties left by ed other properties while seekin oints to evidence and documents

- nor suit ned ants as ever o be ture dent f the duce ons tory ons not eeks ng a

agreements to c of an agreement

33.

the defendants i Trial Court reco and constructed plaintiff and def was accepted o prove that the p observed that n merely an agree executed, such a plaintiff from c Ex.D1, Ex.D2 a

34.

the alleged sale does not amoun any suit filed b non-joinder of R rights of parties

35.

On reason to take a deed was produ interest or seek to the root of considered and n contend that some portion of the t/sale and that such persons are n ese preliminary contentions wer in their written statement and w orded the factual position that R d houses, upon his death the pro fendants were legal heirs, the pl n the material on record and n plaintiff had sold any portion of no sale deed relevant to the dis ement or alleged sale was not assertion could not be treated as claiming his share. These findin and other material and upon heari e Lower Appellate Court examin in favour of one Ram Chander a nt to a completed sale and that n by the alleged purchaser. The A Ram Chander was not a ground on the record. n careful consideration of the e a different view. Where the reco uced and where the alleged purch to be made a party, the omission f jurisdiction or maintainabili negatived the plea that the plain

e estate had been the subject ma necessary parties. re raised before the Trial Court were considered by that Court. T Ram Kishan had purchased the p operty devolved upon his heirs, laintiff's plea of having 1/6th sh no convincing evidence was led f the property. The Trial Court a sputed house was produced, wh acted upon and no sale deed w s an effective alienation to oust ngs were recorded after perusal ing the witnesses. ned the pleading of non-joinder and concluded that mere agreem no sale deed had been executed Appellate Court therefore held t to dismiss the appeal or disturb ntire material, this Court finds ord discloses that no completed s haser has taken no step to assert n, does not in the circumstances ity. The Trial Court specifica ntiff had sold his share. This find

- atter t by plot hare d to also here was l of ment nor that sale his s go ally

is supported by Appellate Court mis-appreciation action, non-join sustain the prese

36.

A c is bad for "part plaintiff admitte that declaration properties and s not maintainable be raised in this Rule 2 CPC.

37.

Hindu Successio heirs in respect the judgments J (supra) and hel right of female h keep the proper heirs and does n Court found tha that part of its o

38.

It i that the statutor fragmentation b the absence of a sale deed and t's conclusion in this respect is n n of evidence. Accordingly the nder and maintainability, on th ent challenge. central plank of the appellant's tial partition". Learned counsel ed in pleadings the existence of t n of joint ownership should h eeking relief qua only one prope e. This plea was formulated agai s RSA by way of application und e Lower Appellate Court dealt w on Act and the distinction betw of partition of a dwelling house Janabai Ammal's case (supra) ld that Section 23 is a special p heirs to seek partition of a dwell rty joint. It concluded that such not preclude a male heir from c at the Trial Court erred in declini rder. s manifest from the language an ry restriction is designed to pr y married daughters, where the h

the evidence on record. The Low not perverse nor is it vitiated by a preliminary objections on cause he specific factual matrix, can case is the submission that the l for the appellant argued that two houses left by Ram Kishan have been sought qua the en erty renders the plaint defective in as an additional ground sough der Section 151 read with Order with the scope of Section 23 of ween the rights of male and fem e. It relied on decisions recorded and Saroj Kumar Mondal's c provision designed to postpone ling house where male heirs elec h restriction is applicable to fem laiming partition. On that basis ing partition and therefore set as nd legislative scheme of Section rotect the dwelling interest aga heir seeking partition is a male h

- wer any e of nnot suit ntire ht to r 41 male d in case ct to male side n 23 inst heir,

there is no statu been filed by da the pleadings a rightly directed operation of Se with the view ta

39.

On declaration qua absolute rule of described, whet omission to inc the present case and the plaintiff the Trial Court treated as joint p assertion that ot concerns a sp opportunity at th such other prop point, that oppo raising of the ob the settled facts

40.

For bad for partial Appellate Court utory bar. The Trial Court's treatm aughters was, in this Court's view and of the identity of the claim attention to this aspect and to ction 23. On this legal proposit aken by the Lower Appellate Cou n the second point the conten one property when other prop f law but depends on whether th ther the plaintiff pleaded his c lude other properties adversely e the plaint and evidence consist f's possession and claim. There w or the Appellate Court showin property and that their omission ther properties exist is not enoug pecifically described dwelling he Trial Court and before the A perties being joint and to pre ortunity was not successfully ava bjection for the first time in RSA and findings of the courts below r these reasons this Court is no partition in law or fact so as t's judgment.

ment of the matter as if the suit h w, based upon a misapprehension mant. The Lower Appellate Co o the authorities which confine tion, this Court does not find fa urt. ntion that a party cannot cla perties remain unclaimed is not he property in question is prope case consistently and whether affects the rights of co-sharers tently describe the house in disp was no reliable proof placed bef ng that other properties were be n would result in an injustice. M gh to vitiate a suit where the disp house. The appellant had Appellate Court to produce proof ss the non-joinder/partial-partit ailed of. In these circumstances A cannot be permitted to overthr w. t persuaded that the present sui s to warrant interference with

- had n of ourt fault aim t an erly . In pute fore eing Mere pute f of tion row

41.

created for the available in 199 Property IDs b identification of

42.

dispute, that the property from th numbering or th identity or the r production of th peripheral techn

43.

Ord whether addition fresh, could not relevant to the post-date the or and description never the subje record establish the house in d plaintiff's symb these aspects a correctly establ nature or identit e appellant seeks to lead muni urban properties and contend 90 and are, therefore, fresh evid bear comprehensive descriptio f the suit property and the adjoini e respondent's case is that identi e Trial Court and the Appellate he evidence and marks relied up he creation of property IDs in m rights adjudicated upon. The re hese documents is unnecessary nicalities. der 41 Rule 27 allows the Appel nal evidence is receivable, beari t be produced earlier with reaso real controversy. In the present riginal proceedings, however, it of the disputed house was alway ct of a genuine controversy bet hes that the father, Ram Kishan, ispute was in the possession o bolic possession remained. The and came to the conclusion th ished and that recent municipa ty of the property so as to affect s

icipal Property ID documents n ds that these documents were dence. The appellant urges that ons and would assist in corr ing house. ity of the suit property was neve Court have properly identified pon at the trial, and that munici more recent times cannot alter espondent further contends that y and will serve only to introd late Court to frame its own view ing in mind whether the evidenc onable diligence, and whether i t case the Property IDs admitte is also plain that the identificat ys part of the trial evidence and w tween the parties. The material had constructed the house and t of defendants No.3 to 6 and t Lower Appellate Court conside hat the identity of the property al numbering does not change substantive rights.

- now not rect er in ipal duce w on e is it is edly tion was l on that that ered

44.

I h the petition for documents, I am core question w being a male he had validly oust ID evidence is t any finding of fa exercise its disc the application u

45.

cannot claim de father and that t Rule 2 are not substantial pleas have been raise one which arise justice to permit

46.

As opportunity to a to the number o sufficient cause proper stage. E appellant is abs from the plaint The record doe have carefully considered the do r additional evidence. Even if m satisfied that they would not which decides the rights of the pa eir, could maintain partition/decl ted the plaintiff by any proved therefore of cumulative or purel fact or law in the appeal. In such cretion to permit additional evide under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is d e appellant sought leave to raise eclaration of joint ownership qu the suit is thus bad for partial p t a roving commission to per s or grounds at a belated stage w d earlier. The Court must be sa es inevitably on the record and t it. noted earlier, the Trial Court and in fact did consider the plead f properties and the nature of the why this distinct legal plea wa Even were the plea permitted, sence of material to demonstrate caused any miscarriage of justic s not contain proof of any exc

ocuments tendered as annexures the Court were to receive th t have any material bearing on arties, namely whether the plaint laration and whether the defenda alienation. The additional prope ly formal value and would not a circumstances the Court should ence at this late stage. Accordin dismissed. an additional plea that the plain a only a single property left by partition. Section 151 and Order rmit the introduction of new which could have been and ough atisfied that the proposed ground that it would be in the interests t and the Appellate Court had dings and the evidence with resp e claim. The appellant cannot sh as not advanced and adduced at the fundamental difficulty for e that omission of other proper ce with respect to the suit prope clusive ownership claim over ot

- s to hose tiff, ants erty alter not ngly ntiff his r 41 ht to d is s of an pect how rties erty.

properties by th short, the propo it would entail f result.

47.

2 CPC for raisin Conclusion

48.

For

(a) rec leav Rul

(b) Jud

49.

Pen

December 10, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh he appellant which could have osed additional ground is specula further remand and delay withou erefore the application under Se ng the plea of "partial partition" i r the foregoing reasons, this Cou The applications moved by th eiving additional evidence unde ve to raise additional ground un le 2 are dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal is w e judgment and decree dated 4.6 dge, Bhiwani are hereby affirmed nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

fatal effect on the present suit ative and cannot succeed, allow ut any real prospect of changing ection 151 read with Order 41 R is refused. urt concludes as under:- he appellant in this High Court er Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and der Section 151 read with Order without substance and is dismiss

6.1990 of the learned Addl. Dist d and shall stand. stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- . In wing Rule for for r 41 sed.