IN THE 126 Rattan Singh Sarita Devi & A CORAM: Present:- Nidhi Gupta, J decree dated Bhiwani in Civ and decree d Division), Bhiw 2. that there was the well-reaso wherein in Par suit land alrea accordingly, th between the p of houses by amounts to th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR gh Vs. i & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate Mr. Pronoy Srivastava, Adv for the appellant. ***** ta, J. Challenge in the present ted 13.09.2024 passed by the lear Civil Appeal No.676 of 2017; and i e dated 15.11.2017 passed by th Bhiwani in Civil Suit No.9415 of 2014 Learned counsel for the was no occasion for the learned low easoned judgment dated 15.11.20 Para 11 it has been categorically re lready stood partitioned between t ly, there was no cause or occasion fo he parties. Learned counsel conten by the parties upon their respec to the parties acting upon the mu p. 1 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3116-2024(O&M) Date of order: 07.01.2025 …..Appellant(s) …..Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate Advocate nt appeal is to the judgment and learned Additional District Judge, nd it is prayed that the judgment y the learned Civil Judge (Senior 2014 may be affirmed. the appellant/defendant submits d lower Appellate Court to reverse 1.2017 of the learned trial Court lly recorded and admitted that the en the parties. It is submitted that on for fresh partition to take place tends that the act of construction spective shares of the suit land, mutual private partition without (s) (s) nd ge, nt ior its rse urt he at ce ion nd, ut SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document any kind of op only be a form fresh partition had been mut sharers are in constructed t prayed that th by the ld. Add and decree d Division), Bhiw 3. 4. perused the ca 5. have been joi Khewat No.85 Kanal 4 Marla Tehsil and D having 9/64th and the appell the parties tha though separa parties. Cons f opposition since long. It is argued formality. Thus, the suit land having ition of the same can be ordered. It mutually partitioned between the re in the possession of their resp d their houses upon their respec at the impugned judgment and dec Additional District Judge, Bhiwani b e dated 15.11.2017 passed by th Bhiwani in Civil Suit No.9415 of 201 No other argument is made I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. The brief facts of the cas jointly owners in possession of G o.85/74, Khatoni No.105, Khasra arla situated within the revenue e d District Bhiwani, wherein respo th share, respondent no.2/plainti pellant/defendant is having 3/4th s that no legal partition of the suit p parate houses have been construct onsequentially, the Plaintiffs wa p. 2 ued that any fresh partition would ving already been partitioned, no It is reiterated that the Suit land the parties long ago and the co- respective shares and had even spective shares. It is accordingly decree dated 13.09.2024 passed ni be set aside; and the judgment y the learned Civil Judge (Senior 2014 may be affirmed. ade on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and case are that parties to the suit f Gair Mumkin plot comprised in asra No.91//17/3/1 measuring 3 ue estate of Village Kharak Kalan, espondent no.1/plaintiff No.1 is aintiff No.2 is having 7/64th share share. It is the admitted case of uit property has taken place, even ructed on the suit property by the wanted the suit land to be uld no nd - n gly ed nt ior nd uit in 3 an, is re of en he be SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document partitioned as Civil Suit No.9 (Senior Divisio had filed Civil Additional D 13.09.2024. 6. the learned tr was dismissed partitioned be amounts to the any kind of op reflect the sai formality, the hereinbefore. T partition of the judgment Ex.D judicata to the permitted by th 7. above, the lea case of both t taken place. N d as per law; and had accordingly, No.9415 of 2014, which was dism ivision), Bhiwani vide judgment dat Civil Appeal No.676 of 2017, which l District Judge, Bhiwani vide A perusal of the judgment d trial court reveals that the suit issed solely on the ground that “… d between the parties. The act of c to the parties having acted upon mu f opposition since long. No doubt Ja e said partition, but, the aforesaid the groundwork already having ore. Thus, the suit land having alrea f the same can be ordered.”The ld. Ex.D16 “… the said judgment does n o the present suit which is qua one by the Court in Ex. D16.” It is the considered view o e learned trial court lost sight of th th the parties that no formal part e. No doubt, there was an informa p. 3 ly, filed a Suit for Partition bearing dismissed by the ld. Civil Judge t dated 15.11.2017. The plaintiffs hich has been allowed by the ld. ide impugned judgment dated ent dated 15.11.2017 passed by suit of the respondents/plaintiffs …the suit land stands privately of construction of houses in fact n mutual private partition without bt Jamabandi Ex.PW1/A does not esaid reflection would only be a aving been done as observed already been partitioned, no fresh ld. Trial Court further opined that oes not in any way operate as res one khewat number only, as was w of this Court that in opining as of the fact that it is the admitted partition of the suit property has ormal mutual partition of the suit ing ge iffs d. ed by iffs ely act ut ot a ed sh at res as as ed as uit SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document land whereup property. How taken place. year 2011-12 as per the respondents/p 1 kanal 16 Ma dated 20.4.20 respondent/pl per the record to show that also produced However, it ha “The facts of merely conten sufficient.” 8. documentary the impugned eupon separate houses have also However, admittedly, no formal par Further, admittedly, even as per 12 (Ex.PW1/A), the property is ref the sale deed no. 2076 dated ts/plaintiffs are shown to be purch Marlas in the suit property. Furthe .2011 reflected in mutation no. 652 t/plaintiffs are shown to be having cord, the appellant/defendant was hat property had been partitioned. ced documentary evidence to refle it has been rightly observed by the s of partition have to be specifica ntending that the suit property h Thus, after considering t ary evidence in extenso, the reason ned judgment is as under: - “18. Defendant in the present c property to be mutually partitio alleged mutual partition took plac not been mentioned by him. M would not disprove revenue entri p. 4 lso been constructed on the suit l partition of the suit property has per the latest Jamabandi for the s reflected as joint property. Even ated 31.5.2011/ Ex. P-3, the urchasers of share to the extent of rther, as per sale deed no. 563/1 . 6521 dated 5.9.2011/ Ex. P-2, the ving share in the suit property. As was unable to rebut this evidence ned. No doubt, the appellant had reflect sale of share in his favour. the ld. lower Appellate Court that cifically pleaded and proved and rty has been partitioned, is not ng the pleadings and oral and asoning as recorded in Para 18 of nt case has merely asserted the rtitioned but between whom the k place and when it took place has . Merely asserting the partition entries which reflect the property uit as he en e of /1 he As ce ad ur. at nd ot nd of the the as ion rty SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fa 9. Appellate Cou Supreme Cour Edathil Valsan 13.06.2022, in comprising in Khewat No.85/74 p to be joint in which plaintiff No.1 No.2 is having 7/64 share and 3 name of the defendant. Jamab property to joint property which failed to rebut.” In passing the impugne Court below has also relied upo Court in “Kattukandi Edithil Krishn lsan & Others” Civil Appeal No.64 in which it has been held that: “Once preliminary decree is passe proceed with case for drawing up Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Orde 1872 Section 114 Setting aside Challenged - Once preliminary de court should proceed with case fo motu - After passing of prelimina list matter for taking steps unde Courts should not adjourn matte separate final decree proceeding allow concerned party to file drawing up final decree - Suit co decree is drawn - Therefore, dir matter for taking steps under O after passing of preliminary decr possession of property, suo m initiation of any separate proceed p. 5 /74 pertaining to the suit property No.1 is having 9/64 share, plaintiff nd 3/4th share is recorded in the mabandi Ex.PW1/A reflects the hich presumption defendant has gned judgment, the ld. Lower upon judgment of the Hon’ble ishnan & Another Vs. Kattukandi o.6406-6407 of 2010 decided on passed by Trial Court, court should g up final decree suo motu. ……A. Order 20, Rule 18 - Evidence Act, side of decree for partition - ry decree is passed by Trial Court, se for drawing up final decree suo iminary decree, Trial Court has to under Order 20, Rule 18 of CPC - atter sine die - No need to file dings - In same suit, court should file appropriate application for uit comes to end only when final , direction to Trial Courts to list er Order 20, Rule 18 of CPC soon decree for partition and separate o motu and without requiring ceedings.” rty tiff the the as er ble ndi on uld A. ct, - rt, uo to - file uld for nal list on ate ing SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. in the impugn 11. 07.01.2025 Sunena Whether Whether In view of the above, no gr ugned order. Present appeal accord Pending application(s) if an her speaking/reasoned her reportable p. 6 o ground is made out to interfere cordingly stands dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Yes/No Yes/No re SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document