RFA-437-2025 RFA-438-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Kavita Arora Rajesh Kumar Kavita Arora Rajesh Kumar CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, 1. This judgment shall dispose of above Arora (wife) 25.02.2025 vide which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana decreeing the suit for separat respondent by the appellant (wife). 2. While in RFA challenged, the other appeal i.e. RFA dismissal of the counter 3. A few facts necessary to notice to dispose of the instant appeals are that respondent way of partition by me 2025 (O&M) & 2025 (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-437-2025 Kavita Arora Versus Rajesh Kumar RFA-438-2025 (O&M) Kavita Arora Versus Rajesh Kumar Date of Decision: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate, GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned two appeals filed by Kavita Arora (wife) challenging the same very judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 vide which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana decreeing the suit for separate possession by way of partition filed by the respondent – Rajesh Kumar (husband), has dismissed by the appellant (wife). While in RFA-437-2025, it is the decretal challenged, the other appeal i.e. RFA-438 dismissal of the counter-claim. A few facts necessary to notice to dispose of the instant appeals are that respondent – Rajesh Kumar (husband) filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds in respect of an area measuring 100 sq. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 (O&M) …Appellant ...Respondent 2025 (O&M) …Appellant ...Respondent Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Advocate, for the appellant. mentioned two appeals filed by Kavita challenging the same very judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 vide which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana while e possession by way of partition filed by the has dismissed the counter-claim filed 2025, it is the decretal of the suit, which is being 438-2025 has been filed to assail the A few facts necessary to notice to dispose of the instant appeals are that led a suit for separate possession by in respect of an area measuring 100 sq. mentioned two appeals filed by Kavita challenging the same very judgment and decree dated while e possession by way of partition filed by the claim filed of the suit, which is being 2025 has been filed to assail the A few facts necessary to notice to dispose of the instant appeals are that led a suit for separate possession by in respect of an area measuring 100 sq. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-437-2025 RFA-438-2025 (O&M) yards out of total property measuring 200 sq. yards A, Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar Block averred that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant/appellant 10.10.1994 and had purchased a plot measuring 200 sq. yards Block-A, Ludhiana No.5703 dated 06.08.2010 and Vasika No.5705 dated 06.08.2010. Each of the said sale deeds was for 100 sq. yards No.5703 dated 06.08.2010 was in the name of the plaintif (husband), the other sale deed bearing Vasika No. in the name of his wife i.e. the appellant matrimonial dispute arose between the parties No.90 dated came to be plaintiff/respondent and his family that he had and unpartitioned, prayed for partition of the same. 4. The appellant/defendant property in fact was purchased by her father in her name and also in the name of her husband and that her husband had purchase of the same. The appellant/defendant property by filing a counter in possession of the property in question and that the plaintiff/respondent was a benami owner. 2025 (O&M) & 2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) out of total property measuring 200 sq. yards A, Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar Block-A, Ludhiana. averred that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant/appellant 10.10.1994 and four children were born out the wedlock. had purchased a plot measuring 200 sq. yards A, Ludhiana by way of two registered sale deeds bearing Vasika No.5703 dated 06.08.2010 and Vasika No.5705 dated 06.08.2010. Each of the said sale deeds was for 100 sq. yards and while 5703 dated 06.08.2010 was in the name of the plaintif (husband), the other sale deed bearing Vasika No. in the name of his wife i.e. the appellant matrimonial dispute arose between the parties 90 dated 29.05.2017 under Sections 452, came to be lodged at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, plaintiff/respondent and his family. The plaintiff/respondent while asserting to discharge a loan and has to se and unpartitioned, prayed for partition of the same. The appellant/defendant (wife) in her written statement took a plea that the property in fact was purchased by her father in her name and also in the name of her husband and that her husband had not spent even a single penny purchase of the same. The appellant/defendant property by filing a counter-claim seeking a in possession of the property in question and that the plaintiff/respondent was owner. out of total property measuring 200 sq. yards comprised in Plot No.199 A, Ludhiana. The plaintiff/respondent averred that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant/appellant four children were born out the wedlock. It is averred that he had purchased a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, by way of two registered sale deeds bearing Vasika No.5703 dated 06.08.2010 and Vasika No.5705 dated 06.08.2010. Each of and while sale deed bearing Vasika 5703 dated 06.08.2010 was in the name of the plaintiff/respondent (husband), the other sale deed bearing Vasika No.5805 dated 06.08.2010 was in the name of his wife i.e. the appellant – Kavita Arora. However, matrimonial dispute arose between the parties on account of which one FIR 452, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC also at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, against the . The plaintiff/respondent while asserting loan and has to sell his property, which was joint and unpartitioned, prayed for partition of the same. in her written statement took a plea that the property in fact was purchased by her father in her name and also in the name not spent even a single penny for the purchase of the same. The appellant/defendant, thus, staked her claim in the a declaration that she is sole owner in possession of the property in question and that the plaintiff/respondent was comprised in Plot No.199- respondent on averred that he in Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, by way of two registered sale deeds bearing Vasika No.5703 dated 06.08.2010 and Vasika No.5705 dated 06.08.2010. Each of Vasika f/respondent 06.08.2010 was However, one FIR also against the . The plaintiff/respondent while asserting joint in her written statement took a plea that the property in fact was purchased by her father in her name and also in the name for the her claim in the declaration that she is sole owner in possession of the property in question and that the plaintiff/respondent was VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-437-2025 RFA-438-2025 (O&M) 5. The trial Court upon marshalling the evidence led by plaintiff/respondent was owner A, Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, Block yards) and as such suit of the plaintiff/respondent defendant/appellant that she is the exclusive owner of the suit property rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the appella decree submitted that since the property in question ha the father of the defendant/appellant and in fact the defendant/appellant had also sold her gold ornaments to purchase the property, it was apparent that the plaintiff/respondent (husband) was merely a also submitted that the suit in any case was bad on account of non necessary parties, as all the co the suit. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned jud 8. It is a case where the execution of the sale deed 06.08.2010 not disputed. Although the defendant/appellant claims that the property i question had been purchased by her father, but surprisingly she has not chosen to examine her father as a witness. any evidence property in question. 2025 (O&M) & 2025 (O&M) ( 3 ) The trial Court upon marshalling the evidence led by plaintiff/respondent was owner to the extent A, Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, Block-A, Ludhiana ( as such, was entitled for partition of the same. Consequently, the of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed while the counter defendant/appellant that she is the exclusive owner of the suit property Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and decree submitted that since the property in question ha the father of the defendant/appellant and in fact the defendant/appellant had also sold her gold ornaments to purchase the property, it was apparent that the plaintiff/respondent (husband) was merely a submitted that the suit in any case was bad on account of non necessary parties, as all the co-owners had We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment and decree. where the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent with regard to 100 sq. yards not disputed. Although the defendant/appellant claims that the property i question had been purchased by her father, but surprisingly she has not chosen to examine her father as a witness. The defendant/appellant evidence to show that she had sold her ornaments to purchase the property in question. Under these circumstances, a presumption of truth being The trial Court upon marshalling the evidence led by the parties, held that the to the extent of 100 sq. yards in Plot No.199 A, Ludhiana (total measuring 200 sq. was entitled for partition of the same. Consequently, the was decreed while the counter-claim of the defendant/appellant that she is the exclusive owner of the suit property was nt while assailing the impugned judgment and decree submitted that since the property in question had been purchased by the father of the defendant/appellant and in fact the defendant/appellant had also sold her gold ornaments to purchase the property, it was apparent that the plaintiff/respondent (husband) was merely a benami owner. Learned counsel submitted that the suit in any case was bad on account of non-joinder of d not been impleaded as a party to We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through where the execution of the sale deed bearing Vasika No.5703 dated in favour of the plaintiff/respondent with regard to 100 sq. yards not disputed. Although the defendant/appellant claims that the property i question had been purchased by her father, but surprisingly she has not chosen The defendant/appellant also failed to lead to show that she had sold her ornaments to purchase the Under these circumstances, a presumption of truth being that the in Plot No.199- measuring 200 sq. was entitled for partition of the same. Consequently, the of the was nt while assailing the impugned judgment and been purchased by the father of the defendant/appellant and in fact the defendant/appellant had also sold her gold ornaments to purchase the property, it was apparent that the Learned counsel joinder of not been impleaded as a party to We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through bearing Vasika No.5703 dated in favour of the plaintiff/respondent with regard to 100 sq. yards is not disputed. Although the defendant/appellant claims that the property in question had been purchased by her father, but surprisingly she has not chosen failed to lead to show that she had sold her ornaments to purchase the Under these circumstances, a presumption of truth being VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-437-2025 RFA-438-2025 (O&M) attached to the registered document, the contention of the defendant/appellant is found to be meritless. 9. The second contention of the appellant that been arraye property in question is a Improvement Trust plots had been carved out and Plot No. Singh and the sale deed thereof was executed in favour of Jagir Singh by Ludhiana Improvement Trust Singh’s sons to the plaintiff/respondent and his wife i.e. defendant/appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there is any other co No.199-A. As such, it cannot be said that there was any other necessary party to the suit. 10. No other argument has been raised. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we d in the findings interference in the sans merit are hereby dismissed. Decree sheets be prepared. 13.08.2025 Vimal 2025 (O&M) & 2025 (O&M) ( 4 ) attached to the registered document, the contention of the defendant/appellant is found to be meritless. The second contention of the appellant that been arrayed in the suit also does not carry any weight inasmuch as the property in question is an urban property acquired and developed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust under the name of Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, wherein plots had been carved out and Plot No.199 and the sale deed thereof was executed in favour of Jagir Singh by Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Later the plot in question was sold by Jagir Singh’s sons to the plaintiff/respondent and his wife i.e. defendant/appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there is any other co A. As such, it cannot be said that there was any other necessary party to the suit. No other argument has been raised. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings as recorded by the Court below interference in the impugned judgment and decree. Both the appeals being sans merit are hereby dismissed. Decree sheets be prepared. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: attached to the registered document, the contention of the defendant/appellant The second contention of the appellant that all the necessary parties have not d in the suit also does not carry any weight inasmuch as the acquired and developed by Ludhiana under the name of Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, wherein 199-A had been allotted to one Jagir and the sale deed thereof was executed in favour of Jagir Singh by plot in question was sold by Jagir Singh’s sons to the plaintiff/respondent and his wife i.e. defendant/appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there is any other co-owner of Plot A. As such, it cannot be said that there was any other necessary party o not find any illegality or infirmity as recorded by the Court below, which may warrant any impugned judgment and decree. Both the appeals being sans merit are hereby dismissed. Decree sheets be prepared. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No attached to the registered document, the contention of the defendant/appellant all the necessary parties have not d in the suit also does not carry any weight inasmuch as the acquired and developed by Ludhiana under the name of Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, wherein allotted to one Jagir and the sale deed thereof was executed in favour of Jagir Singh by plot in question was sold by Jagir Singh’s sons to the plaintiff/respondent and his wife i.e. defendant/appellant. owner of Plot A. As such, it cannot be said that there was any other necessary party o not find any illegality or infirmity , which may warrant any impugned judgment and decree. Both the appeals being VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document