IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 Kewal Krishan & Another Kasturi Lal & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-16980-C- condonation of delay of which is supported by affidavit Vadehra, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court is allowed subject to all just exceptions and d present appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kewal Krishan & Another Vs. Kasturi Lal & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. -2019 This is an application under Section condonation of delay of 55 days in re-filing the After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of Hardeep Singh, Clerk to Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court is allowed subject to all just exceptions and d present appeal is condoned. Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed appellants for separate possession of 24/42 share of plaintiff by way IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5957-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 02.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate This is an application under Section 151 CPC for filing the appeal. After going through the contents of the application, of Hardeep Singh, Clerk to Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 55 days in re-filing the Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed possession of 24/42 share of plaintiff by way 9 for After going through the contents of the application, of Hardeep Singh, Clerk to Narinder Kumar , the same filing the Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed possession of 24/42 share of plaintiff by way SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of partition by metes and bounds out of residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas; along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed with costs 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as “plaintiffs” and respondents as “defendants” 3. of Harbans Lal son of Bhagat Ram son of Damodar Dass. Defendant No.1 Kasturi Lal is son of Bhagat Ram; defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Kasturi Lal son of Bhagat Ram; and defendants No.5 and 6 are Milkhi Ram son of Bhagat Ram. 4. appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for plaintiffs by way of partition by metes and bounds out of measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas comprised in khewat No.42/39 khatauni No.88 khasra No.70/suit property as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2008 09 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Keshopur, H.B. No.249, Tehsil and District Gurdasp No.1 Kewal Krishan along with Harbans Lal had purchased land measuring 14 kanal 4 marla comprised in khatauni No.91 12) Rect No.20 Killa No.3/1/1 (1 Milkhi Ram. After the death of Harbans Lal, his share in joint holding was of partition by metes and bounds out of residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas; along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been with costs by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as “plaintiffs” and respondents as “defendants”. The dispute is inter se family. The plaintiffs are the sons of Harbans Lal son of Bhagat Ram son of Damodar Dass. Defendant No.1 Kasturi Lal is son of Bhagat Ram; defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Kasturi Lal son of Bhagat Ram; and defendants No.5 and 6 are Milkhi Ram son of Bhagat Ram. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for separate plaintiffs by way of partition by metes and bounds out of measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas comprised in khewat No.42/39 khatauni No.88 khasra No.70/suit property as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2008 09 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Keshopur, H.B. No.249, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 Kewal Krishan along with Harbans Lal had purchased land measuring 14 kanal 4 marla comprised in khatauni No.91 12) Rect No.20 Killa No.3/1/1 (1-10), 3/1/2(3 Milkhi Ram. After the death of Harbans Lal, his share in joint holding was of partition by metes and bounds out of residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas; along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been by both the Courts below. rties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as “plaintiffs” and The dispute is inter se family. The plaintiffs are the sons of Harbans Lal son of Bhagat Ram son of Damodar Dass. Defendant No.1 Kasturi Lal is son of Bhagat Ram; defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Kasturi Lal son of Bhagat Ram; and defendants No.5 and 6 are the grandchildren of Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the separate possession of share of the plaintiffs by way of partition by metes and bounds out of residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas comprised in khewat No.42/39 khatauni No.88 khasra No.70/suit property as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2008- 09 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Keshopur, H.B. No.249, Tehsil ur. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 Kewal Krishan along with Harbans Lal had purchased land measuring 14 kanal 4 marla comprised in khatauni No.91 Rect No.10 Killa No.23/1 (1- 10), 3/1/2(3-12), 8/1(6-1), 8/2 (1-19)from Milkhi Ram. After the death of Harbans Lal, his share in joint holding was 9 of partition by metes and bounds out of residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas; along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been rties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as “plaintiffs” and The dispute is inter se family. The plaintiffs are the sons of Harbans Lal son of Bhagat Ram son of Damodar Dass. Defendant No.1 Kasturi Lal is son of Bhagat Ram; defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Kasturi the grandchildren of Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the possession of share of the residential plot measuring 2 kanal 2 marlas comprised in khewat No.42/39 khatauni No.88 - 09 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Keshopur, H.B. No.249, Tehsil ur. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 Kewal Krishan along with Harbans Lal had purchased land measuring - from Milkhi Ram. After the death of Harbans Lal, his share in joint holding was SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document inherited equally by the plaintiffs being successors of Harbans Lal. been alleged that plaintiffs are co in the entire joint holding measuring 178 kanals 13 marlas. The residential plot in dispute is measuring 17 kanals north and south side and 22 karams on eastern and western side and same has been left for the purpose of construction of residential houses. have constructed their houses adjacent to the eastern side of the plot in question and they are using the plot in dispute as the part of their courtyard and haveli jointly with Kasturi Lal defendant No. 1 who has constructed three rooms and one small room. After the demise of their father, the plaintiffs being co residential plot in question measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas are not deriving full benefits according to their share not want to keep their share joint anymore with the defendants and want to get it separated by way of partition by metes and bounds. been alleged that defendants no. 1 to 4 have started taking ill grab the property girdawaries in connivance with the revenue officials in the name of defendant no. 1 showing him in exclusive possession and after that they have started passing illegal forcibly and to raise construction on the entire plot in dispute without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. The inherited equally by the plaintiffs being successors of Harbans Lal. been alleged that plaintiffs are co-sharer to the extent of 2089/3571 share he entire joint holding measuring 178 kanals 13 marlas. The residential plot in dispute is measuring 17 kanals north and south side and 22 karams on eastern and western side and same has been left for the purpose of construction of residential houses. It has been further alleged that plaintiffs have constructed their houses adjacent to the eastern side of the plot in question and they are using the plot in dispute as the part of their courtyard and haveli jointly with Kasturi Lal defendant No. 1 who has structed three rooms and one small room. After the demise of their father, the plaintiffs being co-sharers to the extent of 24/42 share in the residential plot in question measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas are not deriving full benefits according to their share in the residential plot in question. They do not want to keep their share joint anymore with the defendants and want to get it separated by way of partition by metes and bounds. been alleged that defendants no. 1 to 4 have started taking ill grab the property in dispute. They have girdawaries in connivance with the revenue officials in the name of defendant no. 1 showing him in exclusive possession and after that they have started passing illegal threats to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, forcibly and to raise construction on the entire plot in dispute without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. The inherited equally by the plaintiffs being successors of Harbans Lal. It has sharer to the extent of 2089/3571 share he entire joint holding measuring 178 kanals 13 marlas. The residential plot in dispute is measuring 17 kanals north and south side and 22 karams on eastern and western side and same has been left for the purpose of as been further alleged that plaintiffs have constructed their houses adjacent to the eastern side of the plot in question and they are using the plot in dispute as the part of their courtyard and haveli jointly with Kasturi Lal defendant No. 1 who has structed three rooms and one small room. After the demise of their sharers to the extent of 24/42 share in the residential plot in question measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas are not deriving full in the residential plot in question. They do not want to keep their share joint anymore with the defendants and want to get it separated by way of partition by metes and bounds. Further it has been alleged that defendants no. 1 to 4 have started taking illegal steps to in dispute. They have illegally got entries of Khasra girdawaries in connivance with the revenue officials in the name of defendant no. 1 showing him in exclusive possession and after that they threats to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, forcibly and to raise construction on the entire plot in dispute without getting the same partitioned by metes and bounds. Their threats are 9 It has sharer to the extent of 2089/3571 share he entire joint holding measuring 178 kanals 13 marlas. The residential plot in dispute is measuring 17 kanals north and south side and 22 karams on eastern and western side and same has been left for the purpose of as been further alleged that plaintiffs have constructed their houses adjacent to the eastern side of the plot in question and they are using the plot in dispute as the part of their courtyard and haveli jointly with Kasturi Lal defendant No. 1 who has structed three rooms and one small room. After the demise of their sharers to the extent of 24/42 share in the residential plot in question measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas are not deriving full in the residential plot in question. They do not want to keep their share joint anymore with the defendants and want Further it has egal steps to got entries of Khasra girdawaries in connivance with the revenue officials in the name of defendant no. 1 showing him in exclusive possession and after that they threats to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, forcibly and to raise construction on the entire plot in dispute without threats are SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document continuously causing stress and strain to plaintiffs and plaintiffs there share separated by partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have requested the defendants to effect partition by metes and bounds with mutual consent by separating the 24/42 share of plaintiff and the construction already raised be according to the share of the parties and also requested to deposit from making any alteration in the existing position and not to raise any construction without getting the plot in dispute partitioned but defendants flatly refused. Hence, the present suit 5. written statement resisting the suit of the plaintiffs. Besides formal objections, the defendants stated that residential houses for other non plaintiffs. Those killa numbers have been conceal intentionally filed the present suit only regarding the suit land which is in exclusive possession of the defendants as they have raised their residential houses in suit land. It residential purpose. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves constructed their residential houses in the abadi deh area of the join holding which has not been included in the present suit by the continuously causing stress and strain to plaintiffs and plaintiffs there share separated by partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have requested the defendants to effect partition by metes and bounds with mutual consent by separating the 24/42 share of plaintiff and the construction already raised be evaluated and the same be assessed according to the share of the parties and also requested to deposit from making any alteration in the existing position and not to raise any construction without getting the plot in dispute partitioned but defendants ly refused. Hence, the present suit was filed on Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit of the plaintiffs. Besides formal objections, the defendants stated that the land in question is bein residential houses; but there are other killa numbers for other non-agriculture purposes which have not been incorporated plaintiffs. Those killa numbers have been conceal intentionally filed the present suit only regarding the suit land which is in exclusive possession of the defendants as they have raised their residential houses in suit land. It was admitted that the plot in dispute is being used for residential purpose. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves constructed their residential houses in the abadi deh area of the join holding which has not been included in the present suit by the continuously causing stress and strain to plaintiffs and plaintiffs want to get there share separated by partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have requested the defendants to effect partition by metes and bounds with mutual consent by separating the 24/42 share of plaintiff and the evaluated and the same be assessed according to the share of the parties and also requested to deposit from making any alteration in the existing position and not to raise any construction without getting the plot in dispute partitioned but defendants was filed on 06.08.2012. notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit of the plaintiffs. Besides formal the land in question is being used for other killa numbers which are being used which have not been incorporated by plaintiffs. Those killa numbers have been concealed and plaintiffs have intentionally filed the present suit only regarding the suit land which is in exclusive possession of the defendants as they have raised their residential admitted that the plot in dispute is being used for residential purpose. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves constructed their residential houses in the abadi deh area of the join holding which has not been included in the present suit by the 9 want to get there share separated by partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have requested the defendants to effect partition by metes and bounds with mutual consent by separating the 24/42 share of plaintiff and the evaluated and the same be assessed according to the share of the parties and also requested to deposit from making any alteration in the existing position and not to raise any construction without getting the plot in dispute partitioned but defendants notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit of the plaintiffs. Besides formal used for being used by and plaintiffs have intentionally filed the present suit only regarding the suit land which is in exclusive possession of the defendants as they have raised their residential admitted that the plot in dispute is being used for residential purpose. It has been submitted that the plaintiffs have themselves constructed their residential houses in the abadi deh area of the join holding which has not been included in the present suit by the SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiffs intentionally. Denying all other prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs has been made 6. written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated. 7. framed by the learned trial Court: 8. evidence adduced before it, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants; issues No.3 to 5 against the defendants being not pressed as on file any evide defendants have addressed any arguments on these issues...”. plaintiffs intentionally. Denying all other averments made in the plaint, a prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs has been made Replication was filed whereby the assertions made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the separate possession of 24/42 share of the residential plot in question by way of metes and bounds? OPP ii. OPP ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD iv. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD v. Whether partition has already ta co-sharers and they are there in his exclusive possession over the plot in question? OPD vi. Relief.” On the basis of pleadings and oral & evidence adduced before it, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants; issues No.3 to 5 against the defendants being not pressed as on file any evidence in support of these issues nor learned counsel for the defendants have addressed any arguments on these issues...”. Page 5 of 9 averments made in the plaint, a prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs has been made. Replication was filed whereby the assertions made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were of the parties, following issues were Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the separate possession of 24/42 share of the residential plot in question by way of metes and bounds? OPP entitled to get the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD iv. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean v. Whether partition has already taken place between all the sharers and they are there in his exclusive possession over On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants; issues No.3 to 5 against the defendants being not pressed as “...defendants has not brought nce in support of these issues nor learned counsel for the defendants have addressed any arguments on these issues...”. Accordingly, 9 averments made in the plaint, a Replication was filed whereby the assertions made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were of the parties, following issues were Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the separate possession of 24/42 share of the residential plot in question by entitled to get the consequential relief of iv. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean ken place between all the sharers and they are there in his exclusive possession over documentary evidence adduced before it, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants; issues No.3 to 5 “...defendants has not brought nce in support of these issues nor learned counsel for the Accordingly, SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by the plainti costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018 9. learned Courts below have incorrectly held th approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that in fact, the learned Courts below have not considered the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs in correct perspective. It is contended that the suit property is comprised in khasra No.70; and the plaintiffs have categorically stated that khasra No.70 pertains to gairmumkin such land which is described as gairmumkin submitted that however, despite the ca learned Courts below have held that the land comprised in other rectangles and killas is also gairmumkin; and as such, the same should have been subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, the learned Courts below have that the plaintiffs had concealed material facts and the plaintiffs was dismissed for partial partition. that part of the said land is gairmumkin area and is part of agricultural land and therefore, khasra No.70 is the joint property which is gairmumkin cannot be equated with the gairmumkin agricultural land. As such, the vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by the plainti learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018. Hence, present second appeal. Learned counsel for the learned Courts below have incorrectly held th approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that in fact, the learned Courts below have not considered the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs in correct perspective. It is contended that the suit property comprised in khasra No.70; and the plaintiffs have categorically stated that khasra No.70 pertains to gairmumkin abadi and that there is no other such land which is described as gairmumkin submitted that however, despite the categoric assertion of the plaintiffs, the learned Courts below have held that the land comprised in other rectangles and killas is also gairmumkin; and as such, the same should have been subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, the learned Courts below have that the plaintiffs had concealed material facts and the plaintiffs was dismissed for partial partition. part of the said land is gairmumkin area and is part of agricultural land and therefore, it could not have been considered as gairmumkin khasra No.70 is the joint property which is gairmumkin cannot be equated with the gairmumkin agricultural land. As such, the vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed with learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and . Hence, present second appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the learned Courts below have incorrectly held that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that in fact, the learned Courts below have not considered the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs in correct perspective. It is contended that the suit property comprised in khasra No.70; and the plaintiffs have categorically stated abadi and that there is no other such land which is described as gairmumkin abadiin the Jamabandi. It is tegoric assertion of the plaintiffs, the learned Courts below have held that the land comprised in other rectangles and killas is also gairmumkin; and as such, the same should have been subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, the learned Courts below have held that the plaintiffs had concealed material facts and consequentially, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed for partial partition. Learned counsel contends part of the said land is gairmumkin area and is part of agricultural land it could not have been considered as gairmumkin abadi. Only khasra No.70 is the joint property which is gairmumkin abadi; and the same cannot be equated with the gairmumkin agricultural land. As such, the 9 vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016, suit of the plaintiffs was with learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and plaintiffs submits that the at the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. It is submitted that in fact, the learned Courts below have not considered the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs in correct perspective. It is contended that the suit property comprised in khasra No.70; and the plaintiffs have categorically stated abadi and that there is no other in the Jamabandi. It is tegoric assertion of the plaintiffs, the learned Courts below have held that the land comprised in other rectangles and killas is also gairmumkin; and as such, the same should have been held suit of Learned counsel contends part of the said land is gairmumkin area and is part of agricultural land abadi. Only abadi; and the same cannot be equated with the gairmumkin agricultural land. As such, the SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document finding of the learned Courts below on issues No.1 erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is stated that sufficient evidence was led by the plaintiffs from the relevant Revenue Record that the other properties are not gairmumkin Courts below re Moreover, the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued evidence as also the testimonies of the plaintiff witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that the property in dispute has been par accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. 10. 11. perused the case file in great detail. 12. behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it has been established on record that the plaintiffs and defendants are co-sharers of Joint Khata including khasra No.7 (Ex.P1). It is the case of the plaintiffs that khasra No.70 was left for co sharers for residential purposes and that both parties have constructed their houses thereupon. However, the plaintiffs had failed to disclose the existence of other gairmumkin/non from khasra No.70. includes other finding of the learned Courts below on issues No.1 erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is stated that sufficient evidence was led by the plaintiffs from the relevant Revenue Record that the other properties are not gairmumkin abadi. Thus, the observations of the learned Courts below regarding non-joining of all co Moreover, the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued evidence as also the testimonies of the plaintiff witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that the property in dispute has been par accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it has been established on record that the plaintiffs and defendants are sharers of Joint Khata including khasra No.7 (Ex.P1). It is the case of the plaintiffs that khasra No.70 was left for co sharers for residential purposes and that both parties have constructed their houses thereupon. However, the plaintiffs had failed to disclose the ence of other gairmumkin/non-agricultural land in Joint Khata apart from khasra No.70. Whereas, in fact, the Joint Khata of khasra No.70 includes other gairmumkin areas (khata No.42/39 finding of the learned Courts below on issues No.1 and 2 is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is stated that sufficient evidence was led by the plaintiffs from the relevant Revenue Record that the other abadi. Thus, the observations of the learned joining of all co-sharers are also wrong. Moreover, the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued evidence as also the testimonies of the plaintiff witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that the property in dispute has been partitioned. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. made on behalf of the appellants. arned counsel for the appellants and I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it has been established on record that the plaintiffs and defendants are sharers of Joint Khata including khasra No.70 as evident from Jamabandi (Ex.P1). It is the case of the plaintiffs that khasra No.70 was left for co- sharers for residential purposes and that both parties have constructed their houses thereupon. However, the plaintiffs had failed to disclose the agricultural land in Joint Khata apart the Joint Khata of khasra No.70 gairmumkin areas (khata No.42/39 khatoni No.87), which 9 and 2 is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is stated that sufficient evidence was led by the plaintiffs from the relevant Revenue Record that the other abadi. Thus, the observations of the learned sharers are also wrong. Moreover, the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued evidence as also the testimonies of the plaintiff witnesses. There is nothing titioned. It is and I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it has been established on record that the plaintiffs and defendants are 0 as evident from Jamabandi - sharers for residential purposes and that both parties have constructed their houses thereupon. However, the plaintiffs had failed to disclose the agricultural land in Joint Khata apart the Joint Khata of khasra No.70 khatoni No.87), which SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiffs had failed to include in the suit land. Th sought partition only of khasra No.70 to serve their own interests. This is established from the unequivocal testimony of the defendant witnesses which has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs by cross witnesses. DW1 had clearly testified that plaintiffs’ houses are located in other gairmumkin areas. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs had not cross legally acceptable. 13. evidence. The site plan (Ex.P3) produced by the plaintiffs was not proved in accordance with law as Draftsman of the said site plan was not produced as a witness. Moreover, even the said site plan does not depict th owners or occupants of the disputed property. The said fact supports the claim of DW1 that plaintiffs are not residing in the disputed area. The plaintiffs even failed to provide any photographs or evidence to prove that defendants were rai were built long before the suit was filed. Even this assertion of DW1 remained unchallenged in cross in examination raise new construction. Even further, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how the proposed construction any details of what steps defendants took to construct or how it would plaintiffs had failed to include in the suit land. Th sought partition only of khasra No.70 to serve their own interests. This is established from the unequivocal testimony of the defendant witnesses which has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs by cross es. DW1 had clearly testified that plaintiffs’ houses are located in other gairmumkin areas. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs had not cross-examined DW1 on this point, thus, making his statement legally acceptable. Further, there were deficiencies even in the plaintiffs evidence. The site plan (Ex.P3) produced by the plaintiffs was not proved in accordance with law as Draftsman of the said site plan was not produced as a witness. Moreover, even the said site plan does not depict th owners or occupants of the disputed property. The said fact supports the claim of DW1 that plaintiffs are not residing in the disputed area. The plaintiffs even failed to provide any photographs or evidence to prove that defendants were raising new constructions. DW1 were built long before the suit was filed. Even this assertion of DW1 remained unchallenged in cross-examination. in examination-in-chief did not mention that defendants raise new construction. Even further, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how the proposed construction would harm their rights. They did not provide any details of what steps defendants took to construct or how it would plaintiffs had failed to include in the suit land. The plaintiffs had selectively sought partition only of khasra No.70 to serve their own interests. This is established from the unequivocal testimony of the defendant witnesses which has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs by cross-examining the said es. DW1 had clearly testified that plaintiffs’ houses are located in other gairmumkin areas. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs examined DW1 on this point, thus, making his statement ere deficiencies even in the plaintiffs’ evidence. The site plan (Ex.P3) produced by the plaintiffs was not proved in accordance with law as Draftsman of the said site plan was not produced as a witness. Moreover, even the said site plan does not depict the plaintiffs as owners or occupants of the disputed property. The said fact supports the claim of DW1 that plaintiffs are not residing in the disputed area. The plaintiffs even failed to provide any photographs or evidence to prove that sing new constructions. DW1 testified that their houses were built long before the suit was filed. Even this assertion of DW1 examination. Moreover, PW1 in his affidavit chief did not mention that defendants were trying to raise new construction. Even further, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how would harm their rights. They did not provide any details of what steps defendants took to construct or how it would 9 e plaintiffs had selectively sought partition only of khasra No.70 to serve their own interests. This is established from the unequivocal testimony of the defendant witnesses examining the said es. DW1 had clearly testified that plaintiffs’ houses are located in other gairmumkin areas. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs examined DW1 on this point, thus, making his statement ’ evidence. The site plan (Ex.P3) produced by the plaintiffs was not proved in accordance with law as Draftsman of the said site plan was not produced as e plaintiffs as owners or occupants of the disputed property. The said fact supports the claim of DW1 that plaintiffs are not residing in the disputed area. The plaintiffs even failed to provide any photographs or evidence to prove that testified that their houses were built long before the suit was filed. Even this assertion of DW1 Moreover, PW1 in his affidavit were trying to raise new construction. Even further, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate how would harm their rights. They did not provide any details of what steps defendants took to construct or how it would SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document affect them. gairmumkin numbers were not part of gairmumkin 14. No.70) had already been partitioned among the co whereafter respective houses were built. suit, the plaintiffs had sought correction of Revenue Recor partition. However, the plaintiffs were not able to provide proper calculation of their claim of concealing material facts. It was both the Courts be plaintiffs had sought partition of only khasra No.70 while other joint properties. controvert the above said facts and findings. 15. 16. 02.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: affect them. Plaintiffs also did not provide any evidence that other gairmumkin numbers were not part of gairmumkin It has also come on record that the disputed land (khasra No.70) had already been partitioned among the co whereafter respective houses were built. In actual fact by way of present suit, the plaintiffs had sought correction of Revenue Recor partition. However, the plaintiffs were not able to provide proper calculation of their claimed share (24/42) and were therefore, found guilty of concealing material facts. It was in this background that it was both the Courts below that partial partition cannot be permitted as the plaintiffs had sought partition of only khasra No.70 while other joint properties. Ld. Counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ffs also did not provide any evidence that other gairmumkin numbers were not part of gairmumkin abadi. It has also come on record that the disputed land (khasra No.70) had already been partitioned among the co-sharers in 1980 In actual fact by way of present suit, the plaintiffs had sought correction of Revenue Record, and not a fresh partition. However, the plaintiffs were not able to provide proper ed share (24/42) and were therefore, found guilty in this background that it was held by partial partition cannot be permitted as the plaintiffs had sought partition of only khasra No.70 while excluding the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 9 ffs also did not provide any evidence that other It has also come on record that the disputed land (khasra sharers in 1980 In actual fact by way of present d, and not a fresh partition. However, the plaintiffs were not able to provide proper ed share (24/42) and were therefore, found guilty held by partial partition cannot be permitted as the excluding the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute or SUNENA 2025.04.08 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document