JOGINDER PAL AND ORS Vs. DEVKI AND ORS
LAWS(HPH)-2017-7-130
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 25,2017

Joginder Pal And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Devki And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM MURTI GOYAL AND OTHERS VS. BASANT KAUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR KANWAL SINGH VS. WAZIR BAIJ NATH [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH VS. VED PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
GOURHARI DAS VS. JAHARLAL SEAL [REFERRED TO]
DHADI BARIK VS. ARJUN BARIK [REFERRED TO]
Gopal Dass VS. Bismanchali [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER KISHORE VS. FATEH SINGH YADAV AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NASIR AHMAL AND ANR VS. SARFARAZ-UR-RAHMAN KHAN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.)This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 768/2014, whereby he affirmed the order and decree dated 9.7.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, H.P. in CMA No. 14/20005.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition with respect to the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.12/13, Khasra Nos. 124 and 136, measuring 58-6 sq. ft. and Khata/Khatauni No.13/14, Khasra Nos. 117, 122, 123, 124/1, measuring 99.7 sq. yards, situated at Kaswati Bhanjraru, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P. The appellant No.1 had raised specific plea that he is in possession of the property comprised in Khasra Nos.122 and 136 consisting of three storeyed pucca shops, however, the same was adjudicated and it was held that possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all the co-sharers and accordingly, learned trial court decreed the suit so filed by respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 and passed the preliminary decree for possession by partition in favour of respondent No.1 to the extent of her share i.e. 1/3rd share in Khata/Khatauni No.13/14, ½ share in Khata/Khatauni No.13/14 and ½ share out of property comprised in Khasra Nos. 124 and 136.
(3.)Indubitably, the preliminary decree passed by the learned trial court has been upheld uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that during the execution of the preliminary decree, the Local Commissioner was appointed to prepare the mode of partition and to partition the property in question by metes and bounds and to submit the report. The Local Commissioner submitted his report, whereby he suggested a particular mode of partition, which was assailed by the appellants along with proforma respondents, however, the learned executing court vide order dated 9.7.2013 dismissed the objections.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.