Baldev Kaur Etc v. Gurdev Singh and Ors

IN T

Baldev Kaur ali Gurdev Singh al

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

judgment and d Judge, Faridkot allowed, the jud set aside, and th one-half share w Brief facts

2.

for partition an measuring 46 k Sada Thula Um 1999-2000. The share, while the Singh had sold m

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da as Jangir Kaur and Others VERSUS lias Sukhdev Singh and Others ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Ankush Singla, Advocate for th r. I.S.Brar, Advocate for contestin -.- ANNU,J. e present Regular Second App decree dated 28.08.2009 passed t, whereby the appeal filed by dgment and decree of the learne he suit of the plaintiff-responden was decreed. e facts in brief are that the plain nd separate possession of his kanals 16 marlas, being Gair Mu mra, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridk e case of the plaintiff was that he e remaining half belonged to Ja more land than his recorded sha

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3018-2012 (O&M) served on:-25.08.2025 ate of Decision : 01.09.2025 ....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU he appellants. ng respondent No.1. peal has been directed against by the learned Additional Dist the plaintiff-respondent No.1 w ed trial Court dated 17.03.2009 w nt No.1 for partition to the exten ntiff-Gurdev Singh instituted a one-half share in joint prope umkin Abadi land situated in P kot, as per Jamabandi for the y e was co-sharer to the extent of h ang Singh. It was alleged that J are to several vendees and that su

trict was was t of suit erty Patti year half ang

sales could not sought separatio

3.

preliminary obje of necessary p representatives h for partial partit On merits, the Singh had not so

4.

On issues:-

¶1way

2. OP

3.

¶4fee

¶5par

6.

5.

Bot Findings of the

6.

although the pla because necessa

bind the plaintiff beyond Jang on of his half share by metes and e suit was contested by defen ections that the suit was not main parties, as all transferees fro had not been impleaded. It was tion, as the entire joint khata had plaintiff's entitlement was den old more than his share. n the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiff is enti y of partition? OPP Whether the defendant is ent PD-2. Whether the suit is not maint Whether the suit is not value and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the suit is bad on ac rtial partition? OPD Relief. th the parties have led their respe e trial Court e learned trial Court, upon ap aintiff had proved his half share ary parties had not been imple

g Singh's half share. The plain d bounds. ndants no. 2 and 41. They rai ntainable on account of non-join om Jang Singh and their le also pleaded that the suit was b d not been brought into hotchpot nied and it was pleaded that J he trial Court framed the follow itled to the separate possession titled to counter claim for partitio tainable? OPD ed properly for the purpose of co ccount of non-joinder of parties ective evidence. ppreciation of evidence, held t e, he could not be granted a dec eaded. It was noticed that seve

ntiff ised nder egal bad tch. ang wing n by on? ourt and cree

transferees had held not maintai partial partition Findings of the

7.

On the finding of th of Jang Singh, a Placing reliance lower appellate render the suit i decreed to the ex

8.

Fee namely, Baldev

9.

Up appeal. Submissions on

10.

Bef the decree of the a suit for part purchasers from joint khata. Th indispensable p vendees, no ex Prafulla Choro Ali Amad vs. S absence of nece

died and their heirs were not inable for non-joinder of necess was rejected. Consequently, the e Appellate Court n appeal, the learned Additional he trial Court. It was held that de adequately represented his estate e upon Jaskirat Datwani vs. V court held that the absence o incompetent. Accordingly, the ap xtent of one-half share in favour eling aggrieved, the present appe Kaur alias Jangir Kaur, Tarsem on notice, contesting responden n behalf of the appellants/LRs o fore this Court, learned counsel e lower Appellate Court cannot tition, all co-sharers are neces m Jang Singh, having stepped int heir legal representatives, in th parties. It is submitted that wit xecutable decree could be pass one Requitte vs. Satya Chorone Sindhi Ebrahim Kasam, AIR 1 ssary parties is fatal and the suit

impleaded. The suit was theref ary parties, though the objection suit was dismissed on 17.03.200 l District Judge, Faridkot, rever efendants no. 1 to 3, being the h e and the interests of his transfere Vidyawati, AIR 2002 SC 2180, f individual transferees would ppeal was allowed and the suit w r of the plaintiff. eal has been filed by the appella Singh and Harjinder Kaur. nt No.1 appeared and contested of defendant No.2 l for the appellants has argued t be sustained. It is contended tha ssary parties, and the subsequ to his shoes, were co-sharers in e event of their death, were a thout impleading such subsequ sed. Reliance has been placed Requitte, AIR 1979 SC 1682, a 1983 Gujarat 156, to urge that cannot be maintained.

fore n of

¶09rsed eirs ees. not was nts, at in uent also uent on

Submissions on

11.

On argued that the p is sufficient rep transferees unde AIR 1958 SC 88 impleadment of also urged that reiterated in Lif

(2022) 10 SCC 4 Findings of this

12.

Hav the trial Court parties, and the dispute that the khata. However transferees much sharers in their shoes. In a suit decree of parti accordingly. Th renders the suit

13.

Datwani (supra sufficiently repr evidence itself

n behalf of contesting responde n the other hand, learned counse presence of defendants No. 1 to presentation of his estate and er them. Reliance is placed on 86, and Jaskirat Datwani vs. Vi f alienees is not necessarily fatal t substantive rights cannot be fe Insurance Corporation of In

¶401s Court ving considered the rival submis was correct in dismissing the lower Appellate Court erred in plaintiff is a co-sharer to the e r, once Jang Singh had sold h prior to the filing of the presen r own right. Upon their death, t for partition, all co-sharers a ition must bind every co-own he non-impleadment of such sub defective. e reliance placed by the respond a) is misplaced, because in that resented the interest of transferee f shows that several transfe

ent No.1/plaintiff el for respondent No.1/plaintiff 3, who are the heirs of Jang Sin the decree passed would bind Razia Begum vs. Anwar Begu idyawati (supra), to argue that n l if their interest is represented. I e defeated on technical pleas, ndia vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) L ssions, this Court is of the view t suit for non-joinder of necess n reversing that finding. It is no extent of one-half share in the jo portions of his share to seve nt suit, such transferees became their heirs also stepped into th are necessary parties, because ner and allot separate possess bsequent purchasers and their h dent on Razia Begum and Jaski case, the original parties on rec es. In the present case, however, erees had died and their le

has ngh, all um, non-It is as Ltd., sary t in oint eral co-heir any sion eirs irat cord

representatives candidly admitt taken steps to im parties is fatal. applies to the fa entitled to sha impleading of a of the ratio of t parties. Conclusion

14.

Thi constituted and decree of the lo aside.

15.

Acc dated 28.08.200 aside and the ju the suit are resto

16.

Pen

September 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh

were not impleaded. The pl ed that he was unaware of the s mplead their heirs. In such circu The principle laid down in A acts of the present case, as it w are in property by inheritance any necessary party renders the s the law citied above, the suit is is Court, therefore, holds that the was not maintainable for non ower Appellate Court cannot b cordingly, the present appeal is 09 passed by the learned Additio udgment and decree dated 17.03 ored. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

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

laintiff, during cross-examinati status of many vendees and had umstances, the absence of necess Ali Amad's case (supra) squar was held therein that all the pers e are necessary parties and n suit liable to be dismissed. In vi s bad for non-joinder of necess e suit as instituted was not prope n-joinder of necessary parties. T e sustained and is liable to be allowed. The judgment and dec onal District Judge, Faridkot, are

3.2009 of the trial Court dismiss stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

ion, not sary rely ons non-iew sary erly set cree set