Mohan Lal and Ors v. Ruldu Ram and Ors

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Mohan Lal (sinc and Another Ruldu Ram and

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Ms

for

Res

Vid

MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre judgment and d Court, whereby judgment and d aside and the su dismissed the su

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

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

ce deceased) through LRs

VERSUS Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vijay Lath, Advocate and r. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate for s. Mahima Dogra, Advocate (Am respondent No.1. spondents No. 3 to 7, proceeded de order dated 10.09.2025. -.-

ANNU, J. esent Regular Second Appeal decree dated 17.12.1993 passed y the appeal filed by the plain decree dated 03.04.1991 passed b uit of the plaintiff was decreed, w uit of the plaintiff Ruldu Ram.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-362-1994 (O&M) served on:-04.12.2025 onounced on:- 19.12.2025 ploaded on:-22.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellants. micus Curiae) against ex parte has been filed challenging d by the learned Lower Appel ntiff Ruldu Ram was allowed, by the learned Trial Court were whereas the learned Trial Court h

- late set

Brief Facts

2.

of partition of t attached with th

Committee, Rop

3.

restraining the d any construction by Mata Bux an of Kheva, resid Mata Bux was t predecessor-in-i that after the d disputed proper in the disputed p in dispute was construction ove to have purchas e plaintiff had instituted the suit the property in dispute, shown he plaint, and bounded as under: East: House of Shaheeda (no West: Thorough fare North: House of Kaka (now South: House of Sarda Ram ( e suit property is situated par. e plaintiff further sought the r defendants from alienating the p n over it. It was averred that th nd Devi Dayal vide sale deed dat dent of Ropar, for a considerati the father of the plaintiff Ruldu interest of defendants-responden death of Mata Bux, the plainti rty, whereas the defendants also property from Devi Dayal. Acco still joint. It was pleaded that er the disputed property and that sed some portion out of the disp

for possession of half share by w by letters ABCD in the site p ow house of Ram Lal) Sohan Lal son of Umra) (now house of Mata Bux) within the limits of Munici relief of permanent injunction property in dispute and from rais he disputed property was purcha ted 26.08.1925 from Smt. Ralli w ion of Rs.99/-. It was pleaded t u Ram and that Devi Dayal was nts No.1 to 6. It was further plea iff inherited his half share in inherited the remaining half sh ording to the plaintiff, the prope t the defendants intended to ra t defendant No.7 Mohan Lal alle puted property. On these pleadin

- way plan ipal for sing ased wife that ded hare erty aise ged ngs,

the plaintiff pra enjoyment.

4.

Several prelimin had no locus sta maintainable in owner in posses own act and con bad for misjoind

5.

On purchased prop

26.08.1925, and pleaded that the sale deed dated with the dispute According to th Devi Dayal, wh raised construct possession as its objection at the

6.

It w wife of Mohan from Banti Devi for a considerati ayed for partition of the disput e suit was contested by the defe nary objections were raised. Firs andi to file the suit. Secondly, it the present form, as defendant ssion. Thirdly, it was pleaded th nduct from filing the suit. Fourth der and non-joinder of necessary n merits, it was pleaded that perty adjacent to the property d that the site plan produced by t e disputed property shown by let

26.08.1925. It was further plead ed property and that he had not he defendants, the property in d ho gave it to Faqir Chand, his so ion over the disputed property in s exclusive owner. It was pleade time when the construction was was further pleaded that Sheela Lal defendant-respondent No.7 i and other defendants-responden ion of Rs.20,000/-, and since the

ted property for its better use endants by filing written stateme stly, it was pleaded that the plain t was pleaded that the suit was No.7 Mohan Lal was its exclus at the plaintiff was estopped by hly, it was pleaded that the suit w y parties. Mata Bux and Devi Dayal h in dispute vide sale deed da the plaintiff was not correct. It w tters ABCD was not purchased v ded that the plaintiff had no conc inherited the same from his fath dispute was exclusively owned on, during his lifetime. Faqir Ch n the year 1955-56 and remained ed that the plaintiff never raised made. a Devi, defendant-respondent No 7, purchased the disputed prope nts vide sale deed dated 11.04.19 en defendant No.7 Mohan Lal alo

- and ent. ntiff not sive his was had ated was vide cern her. d by and d in any o.8, erty

with his family m that the plaintiff

7.

Fro following issues

1.

¶2pos

3.

¶4from

¶5nec

¶6fee

¶7Findings of the

8.

interlinked. Upo held that althou extent of ½ sha site had already portion of the portion, which i members had been residing in th f had no right to seek partition of om the pleadings of the parties, s: Whether the father of the p suit property on 26.08.1925? OP Whether the plaintiff is a co-ssession of the suit property with Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff is esto m filing the present suit? OPD. Whether the suit is bad fo cessary parties? OPD. Whether the suit is not value and jurisdiction? OPD. Relief. e Trial Court e learned Trial Court took up on appreciation of the oral and ugh a vacant site was purchased are each vide sale deed dated 2 y been partitioned between them property came to the share of s the property in dispute, came t

he disputed property. It was plea f the disputed property. the learned Trial Court framed plaintiff and Devi Dayal purcha PP. -sharer to the extent of 1/2 share h the defendants? OPP. tainable in the present form? OP opped by his own act and cond or non-joinder and mis-joinder ed properly for the purposes of co Issues No.1 to 4 together, be d documentary evidence, the Co by Mata Bux and Devi Dial to

6.08.1925 (Ex.P2), the said vac m. It was found that the south f Mata Bux, whereas the north o the share of Devi Dial.

- ded ased e in D. duct r of ourt eing ourt cant hern

9.

by Faqir Chand

¶56After the dea subsequently so

11.04.1985. Th statements of DW Sheela Devi. Th construction wa the same.

10.

On site plan Ex.P3 dimensions and failed to establ purchased under was not a co-sh thereafter his le since 1955. Con conduct from fil

11.

Acc favour of the d entitled to seek p

12.

Issu to have becom defendant No.8 e Trial Court further held that t son of Devi Dial, who raised co ath of Faqir Chand, the property old it to Sheela Devi (defendant e execution of the said sale d W3 Bant Devi, DW2 Gurdayal S he Court also noticed the admiss as raised by Faqir Chand in 195 n comparison of the site plan Ex. attached with the sale deed Ex d boundaries did not tally, ther ish that the disputed property r sale deed dated 26.08.1925. Th arer in the disputed property and egal heirs and Sheela Devi in p nsequently, the plaintiff was he ling the suit. cordingly, Issues No.1 to 4 were defendants, holding that the pla partition and that the suit was no ue No.5 relating to misjoinder a me redundant, as Sheela Devi pursuant to amendment allowed

the disputed property was inheri onstruction over it in the year 195 y devolved upon his legal heirs, w No.8) vide sale deed Ex.D1 da deed was duly proved through Singh (attesting witness), and DW sion of the plaintiff as PW1 that 5–56 and that he never objected P1 relied upon by the plaintiff w x.P2, the Trial Court found that reby holding that the plaintiff h formed part of the joint prope he Court concluded that the plain d had been seeing Faqir Chand possession of the disputed prope eld to be estopped by his act e decided against the plaintiff and aintiff was neither a co-sharer ot maintainable. and non-joinder of parties was h had already been impleaded d on 10.08.1989.

- ited 55– who ated W5 d to with had erty ntiff and erty and d in nor held

13.

Issu decided against led by the defen

14.

On Court dismissed Findings of the

15.

the parties and r found that the le the plaintiff. Th the property wa dated 26.08.192 dispute. The ple deed dated 26.0 incorrect and ev

16.

evidence on beh deed dated 26.0 and therefore th partition on its o attached with th defendants' witn Sadhu Ram, the property tally w ue No.6 regarding valuation f the defendants and in favour o ndants to substantiate the said obj n the basis of the findings on I d the suit of the plaintiff . e Lower Appellate Court e learned Lower Appellate Cour re-appreciating the entire oral an earned Trial Court had erroneous he Lower Appellate Court held th as purchased jointly by Mata B 25 (Ex.P2) and that the executio ea taken by the defendants that

08.1925 was only adjacent to the vasive. e Lower Appellate Court further half of the defendants to show th

08.1925 was ever partitioned be he learned Trial Court was not j own. On comparison of the site p he sale deed Ex.P2, and in vie nesses, including DW2 Gurdial e Lower Appellate Court held t with the property purchased vide s

for court fee and jurisdiction w of the plaintiff, as no evidence w jection. Issues No.1 to 6, the learned T rt, after hearing learned counsel nd documentary evidence on reco sly decided Issues No.1 to 4 aga hat it stood admitted on record t ux and Devi Dayal vide sale d on of the said sale deed was no t the property purchased vide s e disputed property was found to r held that there was no pleading hat the property purchased vide s etween Mata Bux and Devi Day ustified in constructing a theory plan Ex.P1 with the site plan Ex ew of the admissions made by Singh, DW3 Banti Devi and DW that the boundaries of the dispu sale deed dated 26.08.1925.

- was was Trial for ord, inst that deed t in sale o be g or sale yal, y of x.P3 W4

17.

defendants' wit house of Ram L was the house o thereby fully su basis, the Cour purchased by M

18.

On mere fact that Fa did not object a inaction or silen deprivation of l thus held to be l Sheela Devi der

19.

Con co-sharer to the maintainable, an liable to be rev decree of the Tr passing a prelim Sheela Devi to appointment of

20.

Ag the defendant N e Lower Appellate Court also t tnesses that on the eastern side Lal, on the western side was a of Sohan Lal and on the souther upporting the site plan Ex.P1 p rt held that the disputed proper Mata Bux and Devi Dayal. n the question of estoppel, the L aqir Chand had raised constructi at that time, did not divest the p nce does not amount to acquies legal right. The plea of estoppe legally unsustainable, particularl rived title with full knowledge th nsequently, the Lower Appellat e extent of half share in the di nd that the findings of the Tria versed. The appeal was accord rial Court were set aside, and the minary decree for partition, holdi be co-owners to the extent of h a Local Commissioner for effect grieved by the judgment and de No.7-Mohan Lal and his wife ap

took note of the admissions of e of the disputed property was thoroughfare, on the northern s rn side was the house of Mata B produced by the plaintiff. On t rty is the same which was join ower Appellate Court held that ion in 1955–56 and that the plain plaintiff of his title. It was held t scence unless it results in fraud el accepted by the Trial Court w ly when Faqir Chand and therea hat the property was joint. te Court held that the plaintiff i isputed property, that the suit w al Court on Issues No.1 to 4 w dingly allowed, the judgment e suit of the plaintiff was decreed ing the plaintiff and defendant N half share each, with a direction ting partition by metes and boun ecree of the lower Appellate Co pproached this Court by way of

- side Bux, this ntly ntiff that d or was after is a was were and d by No.8 for ds. ourt,

present regular contesting respo proforma respon Submissions on

21.

Lea decree passed b fact and law an Court had righ documentary ev reasoned finding

22.

It w and the plaintiff one purchased v site plan Ex.P1, dimensions or m the suit proper regarding measu of the property regarding the di sale deed.

23.

Lea Ex.P1 do not ta Ex.D3, which w property purcha second appeal for setting aside ondent, chose to contest the app ndents proceeded against ex-part n behalf of the Appellants arned counsel for the appellant by the learned Lower Appellate nd deserve to be set aside. It wa htly dismissed the suit after a vidence, but the learned Lower gs merely on conjectures and sur was argued that the identity of f has failed to establish that the d vide sale deed dated 26.08.1925 , relied upon by the plaintiff, d measurements, and therefore can rty. It was submitted that the urements, as on one hand he wa claimed by him, while on the imensions of another property a arned counsel further contende ally with the dimensions emerg were proved on record by the d ased in 1925 was a vacant site,

the same. Respondent No.1, be peal. Respondents No.3 to 7 be te. s submitted that the judgment Court suffer from serious errors as contended that the learned T a proper appreciation of oral Appellate Court reversed the w rmises. the suit property itself is doubt disputed property is the same as

¶5According to the appellants, does not mention clear and relia nnot form the basis for identify plaintiff took inconsistent sta as unable to specify the dimensi e other hand he asserted certai allegedly purchased under the sa ed that the dimensions shown ing from the site plans Ex.D2 defendants. It was argued that whereas the property presently

- eing eing and s of Trial and well-tful, able ying ands ions inty ame n in and

possession of th Faqir Chand, an The long lapse that the plaintiff

24.

It w Sheela Devi ha appellants stand cannot be sustai as passed by th execution, as the

25.

Lea ignored the vita 56 and failed t supported by m reversal of the and the findings Submissions on

26.

Per judgment and d that the same is argued that the not disputed tha to the extent of h he appellants is a constructed ho nd the plaintiff admittedly never of nearly 35 years before the in f never treated the disputed prope was also submitted that the sale s never been challenged by the ds established through a register ined. According to learned coun he Lower Appellate Court is e identity and measurements of t arned counsel emphasized that t al admissions of the plaintiff rega to attach due weight to the de measurements and municipal r Trial Court judgment has resul s of the Trial Court deserve to be n behalf of Respondent No.1 r contra, learned counsel for the decree passed by the learned Low s based on a correct and lawfu execution of the sale deed date at the property was purchased jo half share each.

use, raised long ago in 1955–56 r raised any objection at that tim nstitution of the suit clearly sho erty as joint. deed dated 11.04.1985 in favour plaintiff, and once the title of red sale deed, the suit for partit nsel, even if the preliminary dec upheld, it would be incapable the suit property remain uncertai the learned Lower Appellate Co arding construction raised in 195 efendants' site plans, which w record. It was submitted that ted in grave miscarriage of just e restored. e respondent-plaintiff supported wer Appellate Court and submit ul appreciation of evidence. It w ed 26.08.1925 is admitted, and i ointly by Mata Bux and Devi Da

- 6 by me. ows r of tion cree e of in. ourt 55– were tice tted was it is

27.

It w property purcha evidence was le was attached w substantially tal variations attribu

28.

Lea Bux and Devi learned Trial C argued that the L invent a case of

29.

Wi measurements, natural and do counsel, must be admissions of defendants admi of Ram Lal, on house of Sohan fully corroborate

30.

Lea Faqir Chand in silence does not was contended that the sole defe ased in 1925 was adjacent to th ed to support this plea. On the c with the sale deed, clearly menti lly with the boundaries reflected utable to passage of time. arned counsel submitted that no Dayal was ever produced by ourt committed an error in assu Lower Appellate Court correctly f partition in the absence of plead th regard to dimensions, it was especially in old properties pu not defeat substantive rights. T e on identity through boundaries defendants' witnesses themsel itted that on the eastern side of t the western side was a thoroug n Lal and on the southern side w es the plaintiff's site plan. arned counsel further submitte 1955–56 does not extinguish the t amount to abandonment of ow

fence of the appellants was that he disputed property, but no cog contrary, the site plan Ex.P3, wh ions the boundaries, and the sa d in Ex.P1, notwithstanding mi evidence of partition between M the defendants, and therefore uming partition on its own. It w y held that the Trial Court could dings or proof. argued that minor discrepancies urchased nearly a century ago, The emphasis, according to learn s, which stands established from lves. It was pointed out that the disputed property was the ho ghfare, on the northern side was was the house of Mata Bux, wh ed that the construction raised e plaintiff's title, as mere inaction wnership. It was contended that

- gent hich ame inor Mata was not s in are ned ouse hich by

defendants deriv therefore cannot

31.

It w held the plaintif partition is perfe perversity or su Court. Findings of this

32.

Aft both the courts b evidence on rec view that the j interference nei reasons which re

33.

At the parties revol the question as t any partition ha and foremost ob that the propert claims co-owner

34.

(Ex.P2) and the shown by letters ved title with full knowledge of t claim any equity on the basis o was lastly submitted that the lear ff to be a co-sharer to the exten ectly executable through appoint ubstantial question of law arise s Court ter giving my anxious consider below, the pleadings of the parti cord and the rival submissions udgment and decree passed by ither on facts nor in law and equire to be clarified and elabora the outset, it is to be noticed th lves around the identity of the su to whether Mata Bux and Devi D d taken place inter se between th bligation of the plaintiff is to esta ty sought to be partitioned is th rship. This foundational requirem e plaintiff has relied primarily up e site plan Ex.P1 prepared by s ABCD is the same property wh

the joint nature of the property f construction or lapse of time. rned Lower Appellate Court righ nt of half share, and the decree tment of a Local Commissioner. es warranting interference by t ration to the judgments passed ies, the documentary as well as o advanced, I am of the conside y the learned Trial Court call deserve to be upheld, though ated. hat the entire controversy betw uit property, and not merely arou Dayal were joint owners or whet hem. In a suit for partition, the f ablish, with certainty and precisi he very same property in which ment cannot be diluted. pon the sale deed dated 26.08.19 him to contend that the prope hich was purchased jointly by M

- and htly for this by oral ered for for ween und ther first ion, h he erty

Baksh and Devi the sale deed E measurements a dimensions at significance, as comparison wit serious lacuna w

35.

It is time, owing to house which wa building, and measurements a width of a plot, document conta completely silen correlate the tw fatal to the plain

36.

oral testimony, by Faqir Chand time. He also ad of Faqir Chan significance wh plan with meas i Dayal. However, a careful scrut Ex.P2 and the site plan attache and dimensions, the plaintiff's sit all. The absence of dimens s it renders the site plan inca th the title document. This omi which goes to the root of the plain s true that boundaries of a prope subsequent constructions, tran as once adjacent to an open cou names of adjoining owner and dimensions do not ordinarily unless lawfully altered, remain ains measurements, but the site nt on dimensions, the court is o. In the present case, this very ntiff's case. e evidence of the plaintiff himse he admitted that construction ov in the year 1955–56 and that he dmitted that the said construction nd and, thereafter, his succe hen examined in the light of the surements. If the plaintiff was

tiny of the record reveals that wh ed thereto (Ex.P3) contain spec te plan Ex.P1 does not mention sions in Ex.P1 assumes crit apable of precise identification ission is not a minor defect, bu ntiff's claim. erty may change with the passage nsfers and urban development. urtyard may later abut a construc s may also change. Howev y change with time. The length constant. Therefore, where the t plan relied upon by the plaintif left without any reliable means absence of dimensions in Ex.P elf further weakens his case. In ver the disputed portion was rai e did not raise any objection at t n continued to remain in possess ssors. These admissions assu plaintiff's failure to produce a indeed a co-sharer in the spec

- hile cific any ical n or ut a e of . A cted ver, and title ff is s to 1 is his ised that sion ume site

portion on whi dimensions wou plaintiff, couple a serious doubt o

37.

11.04.1985 (Ex when read with picture regardin house. Importan the spot and wi The Trial Court when contrasted

38.

property purcha Dayal, as there erroneous obser the Trial Court because one of sustainable on partition is kep property shown co-sharer in that

39.

of partition, bu ich construction was raised, a uld have been the minimum req ed with the existence of a defined on his present claim. e defendants, on the other han x.D1) along with site plans Ex. h the oral evidence of the defen ng the location, dimensions and ntly, the defence site plans corre ith the historical fact that the co t was justified in placing relian d with the plaintiff's site plan wh e learned Trial Court did comm ased in 1925 had been partitio e was no pleading or evidence rvation does not, by itself, vitiate t. It is well settled that a judg f the reasons given is incorrec the basis of the evidence on t aside, the plaintiff still had t in Ex.P1 is the same property t very property. On this crucial a e Lower Appellate Court rightly ut in the process, it fell into a

a clear demarcation supported quirement. The long silence of d construction since 1955–56, ca nd, produced the sale deed da D2 and Ex.D3. These documen nce witnesses, present a consist d physical features of the dispu late with the construction raised onstruction dates back to 1955– nce on this consistency, especia hich lacks any measurements. mit an error in observing that oned between Mata Bux and D e of such partition. However, t e the ultimate conclusion reached gment cannot be set aside mer ct, if the conclusion is otherw record. Once the assumption to independently establish that purchased in 1925 and that he aspect, the plaintiff failed. y noticed that there was no evide more serious error. It treated

- by asts ated nts, tent uted d on –56. ally Devi this d by rely wise n of is a

correction of th suit, without con Lower Appellat measurements, a solely on the ba where identity i test, particularly

40.

while underplay are susceptible plan is silent on documentary an with the dimens

41.

Mo plaintiff's admis admissions, read serious dent in unpartitioned. T overall credibili

42.

Thu regarding partit discharge the in Trial Court, the refined by excl he Trial Court's reasoning on p nclusively addressing the core is te Court glossed over the fact and proceeded on the assumptio sis of boundaries. This approach is disputed, measurements provi y when the title document itself c e Lower Appellate Court also at ying the importance of measurem to change, but dimensions are n n dimensions, greater evidentiar nd oral evidence produced by th sions of the constructed property oreover, the Lower Appellate Co ssions regarding long-standing c d in conjunction with the absenc n the plaintiff's claim that the The Trial Court rightly appreciate ty of the plaintiff's case. us, even after correcting the T tion, the conclusion remains ine nitial burden of proof cast upon h refore, stands on firm footing, t luding the incorrect assumptio

partition as sufficient to decree ssue of identity of the property. T that Ex.P1 does not disclose on that identity could be establish h overlooks the settled principle t ide the most reliable and object contains dimensions. ttached undue weight to boundar ments. As already noted, boundar not. Where the plaintiff's own ry value necessarily attaches to the defendants, which is consist on the spot. ourt did not adequately deal with construction and possession. Th ce of dimensions in Ex.P1, creat e disputed portion was joint ed these aspects while assessing Trial Court's erroneous assumpt evitable that the plaintiff failed him. The dismissal of the suit by though the reasoning requires to n of partition and by resting

- any hed that tive ries ries site tent hese te a and tion d to

decision square property throug absent in Ex.P1. Conclusion

43.

For rightly dismisse well-founded ju

44.

Con judgment and d Court are hereby by the learned T modification tha regarding an all be unsustainable

45.

Pen

December 19, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ely on the failure of the plainti gh reliable measurements and d . r all these reasons, this Court ed the suit, and the Lower Appe udgment nsequently, the present Regular decree dated 17.12.1993 passed y set aside, while the judgment a Trial Court dismissing the suit o at the observation and finding r leged prior partition between Ma e and are accordingly set aside. nding application(s), if any, also

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

iff to establish identity of the dimensions, which are complet holds that the learned Trial Co ellate Court erred in reversing t Second Appeal is allowed and d by the learned Lower Appel and decree dated 03.04.1991 pas f the plaintiff are restored, with recorded by the learned Trial Co ata Bux and Devi Dayal are held stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- suit tely ourt that late ssed ourt