R.S.A. No. 3048 of 2012. Case: Attar Singh and Others Vs Rajbir Singh and Others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | R.S.A. No. 3048 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate |
| Judges | L.N. Mittal, J. |
| Issue | Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - Section 158 |
| Judgement Date | July 17, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
L.N. Mittal, J.
-
Plaintiffs Attar Singh etc., having been non-suited by both the courts below, have filed this second appeal. Plaintiffs/appellants alleged that they are joint owners in possession of half share of 161 kanals 07 marlas land. They also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction on any specific portion of the said land and for demolishing the construction, if any raised, during pendency of the suit.
-
The plaintiffs claimed to be owners of half share of the aforesaid land on the basis of decree dated 19.11.1987 suffered in their favour by their father. It was alleged that partition orders dated 25.10.2000 and 30.11.2000 of the aforesaid joint land passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Beri are illegal and null and void being not as per shares of the plaintiffs.
-
Contesting defendants controverted the averments of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the joint land has been rightly partitioned by the Revenue Court and no extra share has been given to the defendants. Various other pleas were also raised.
-
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2012. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.
-
I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
-
Counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiffs/appellants were declared owners in possession of half share of the aforesaid land vide Civil Court decree dated 19.11.1987, but in partition proceedings, they have been given lesser share in the joint land. It has also been pointed out that partition orders of the Revenue Court have been passed ex-parte. It was also submitted that first appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial