HAKIM HARI RAM Vs. SANTA RAM
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HAKIM HARI RAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Two points arise for decision in the present case, namely (1) whether the trees planted by a person by his own effort and at his own costs on a plot of land belonging jointly to himself and to others can be regarded as the exclusive property of the co-sharer by whom they were planted or as the joint property of all the co-sharers of the land in which they were planted; and (2) whether the question as to the manner in which agricultural land should be partitioned among the several co-sharers can be determined by a Civil Court.
(2.) The parties to the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen are co-sharers in a plot of land situate in village Salaula of the Ambala District. They applied for the partition of the property, and while the partition proceedings were in progress before the Tahsildar of Naraingarh the defendants asked for the allotment of khasra Nos. 515 and 519 on the ground that their ancestors Mihala, Bhagwana and Jaura had planted a large number of mango trees in the said fields and consequently that the plaintiffs had no right in those trees. The Tahsildar was of the opinion that the question whether the trees belonged to the plaintiffs or the defendants was one "as to title in the property of which the partition was sought" within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 116; Land Revenue Act, 1887. He accordingly consigned the proceedings to the Record Room and directed the parties to have the dispute as to title determined by a Civil Court.
(3.) On 26-10-1945 the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that khasra Nos. 515 and 519 and the trees standing thereon were the joint, property of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial Court held that the parties were co-sharers in the fields in question, that the trees standing in those fields were planted by Nihala, Khagwana and Jaura ancestors of the defendants and that as the trees were planted by the ancestors of the defendants, the defendants and not the plaintiffs were owners thereof. In view of this finding the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the defendants and this decree was confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal. The plaintiffs have come in this Court in Second Appeal and the question for this Court is whether the Courts below have come to a correct determination in point of law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.