Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santokh Singh vs Bhajan Singh on 19 November, 2014
R.S.A. No. 5506 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 5506 of 2003
Date of Decision : November 19th, 2014
Santokh Singh .... Appellant
Versus
Bhajan Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. [Oral] None is present on behalf of the respondent despite several calls. Santokh Singh, appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003 of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby while reversing the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2003 of Civil Judge [Junior Division], Samrala, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.
2. This appeal concerns a family dispute where two brothers are facing each other in litigation inter alia with regard to ownership of an electric connection bearing Account No. P-166 and electric motor of 5 BHP installed in covered area called kotha, which was earlier in the name of their father, Saun Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of Village Powat, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. After the death of Saun Singh, their father, both the brothers have claimed equal share in his estate in a separate suit bearing No. 275/86-350/87 instituted on PARKASH SOM 2014.11.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document R.S.A. No. 5506 of 2003 2 28.7.1986/10.12.1987 which was decided on 8.2.1988 whereby 1/3rd share was held in favour of the present appellant, Santokh Singh and 2/3rd share was held in favour of his brother, Bhajan Singh. The appellant herein as also his brother, Bhajan Singh both filed first appeals challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1988 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Samrala. In the said adjudication by the first Appellate Court, rendered on 30.1.1990, appeal of the present appellant [Santokh Singh] was accepted whereas of his brother, Bhajan Singh was dismissed. The effect of decision of the said first appeal would be that both the brothers are in joint possession of the estate of Saun Singh.
3. R.S.A. No. 702 of 1990, preferred by Bhajan Singh, respondent herein, has been dismissed today for non-prosecution.
4. So far as the Regular Second Appeal in hand, bearing RSA No.5506 of 2003, filed by Santokh Singh is concerned, it is regarding electric motor, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph No. 2 earlier. The trial Court had adjudicated the matter in favour of the present appellant, whereby direction had been given to respondent, Bhajan Singh to allow him to use the said electric motor connection to the extent of ½ share i.e., after every 24 hours. Only to this extent, suit of the plaintiff was decided on 3.4.2003 in favour of Santokh Singh, appellant herein.
5. First appeal filed by Bhajan Singh against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 3.4.2003 was accepted by the first Appellate Court on 30.9.2003.
6. Since in the land dispute in connected R.S.A. No. 5506 of 2003, both the brothers have been held to be co-shares and no finding regarding partition has come, setting-aside the judgment and decree of first Appellate Court, dated 30.9.2003, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 3.4.2003 is restored. Thus, partly accepting the appeal of PARKASH SOM 2014.11.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document R.S.A. No. 5506 of 2003 3 appellant, Santokh Singh, he is allowed to use the electric motor in terms of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 3.4.2003 of the lower Court. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
(Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) JUDGE th November 19 , 2014 som
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PARKASH SOM 2014.11.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document