Surinder Singh vs Harvinder Singh And Others on 18 September, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Singh vs Harvinder Singh And Others on 18 September, 2017

Bench: Raj Mohan Singh

CR No.5882 of 2017                                 1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CR No.5882 of 2017
                                        Date of Decision: 18.09.2017

Surinder Singh                                     ......Petitioner

       Versus

Harvinder Singh and others                         .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for
        Mr. Jagraj Singh Khiva, Advocate
        for the petitioner.

           ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

[1]. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Budhlada, District Mansa, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by petitioner/defendant No.1 for rejection of plaint was declined. [2]. Plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession on the ground that he is owner of a defined share in the total land. Will and sale deeds were also sought to be annulled. Plaintiff being son of Avtar Singh claimed his title after the death of Avtar Singh on 07.11.2002.

[3]. In case of co-sharers in the joint land, every co-sharer would be deemed to be in possession of every inch of land till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. Even if the land is 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2017 01:01:51 ::: CR No.5882 of 2017 2 sold by specific khasra number out of joint land, the same shall amount to sale of share only in view of ratio as laid down in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204. Since the plaintiff claimed himself to be a co-sharer of a defined share and the land has not been partitioned, therefore, he would also be presumed to be in joint possession of every inch of land till partition. The present case falls under principle No.2 of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex in Suhrid Singh @ Sardoolsingh Vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 564 i.e. non-executant in possession is only required to affix Court fee of Rs.19.50 in view of Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act.

[4]. In view of above, I find no error of jurisdiction in the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Budhlada, District Mansa. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.





September 18, 2017.                         (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince                                           JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes/No
Whether reportable                        Yes/No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2017 01:01:54 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court