Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Bhoop Singh Etc vs Ram Saroop Etc on 9 March, 2026
Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal
RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
102 RSA No.
No.2463 of 1995 (O&M)
Reserved on
on:25.02.2026
Pronounced on:09.03.2026
Uploaded on:1
on:17.03.2026
Bhoop
hoop Singh and others ... Appellants
Versus
Ram Saroop
p (since deceased) through LRs and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate
Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Hemant Bassi, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate
Ms. Saloni Chhabra, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
*****
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned trial Court whereby ereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1 No.1-plaintiff for possession of suit property as prayed in the plaint, was de decreed creed as well as the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.1995 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, convenience, parties are being referred to by their original status before the learned trial Court.
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:04 :::
RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -2-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendants were joint owners and co-sharers co sharers of agricultural land situated in village Mohammadpur Ahir. The plaintiff moved an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nuh. The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 17.12.1980, on the basis of which a partition deed was prepared on Collec 1st Grade, Nuh. According to the plaintiff, 05.02.1981 by the Assistant Collector the land detailed in paragraph No.3 of the plaint was allotted to him in the said partition proceedings and he thereby became the exclusive owner thereof. It was further pleaded that he was in actual physical ppossession ossession of the land detailed in paragraph No.4 of the plaint but was dispossessed from the land detailed in paragraph No.5 of the plaint (the suit property). The plaintiff alleged that despite the partition proceedings, the defendants did not deliver pos possession session of the land allotted to him and removed the partition marks. As the possession could not be obtained through the revenue authorities within the prescribed period, the plaintiff tiff was constrained to file the present suit for possession.
4. The defendants defendants contested the suit and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the suit was not maintainable, was barred by limitation and suffered from mis-joinder mis joinder of parties. It was also pleaded that the partition proceedings and the orders dated 17.12.1980 and 05.02.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector were vague, indefinite and no non-executable.
executable.
The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court. It was pleaded that Ramesh Kumari, Mani Ram, Hem Ram and Devi Ram, being minors, were not represented properly before the Revenue Court in partition proceedings and the Court guardian did not act in a bona fide manner to protect their interest. The partition proceedings init initiated iated were 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -3- dismissed by the District Revenue Officer on 27.01.1987 and the appeal/revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner Ambala on 27.01.1988.. It was also denied that the land detailed in para No.3 ever came to the share are of the plaintiff, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues including relief and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1993 holding that the plaintiff was entitled to possession in accordance with the partition proceedings. Aggrieved against the said before the learned 1st judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal befor Appellate Court, which was dismissed, affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
6. Still dissatisfied, the defendants have filed the present regular egular second appeal ppeal before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant appellants contended that the learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit as the partition proceedings were vague and incapable of execution. It was further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and furthermore, barred by limitation.
tion. The revenue officer has the power to deliver possession to an owner or tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy is allotted in proceedings for partition in cases where the application is made within three years from the date recorded in the instrument nstrument of partition. In case, no such application is made within the prescribed period of three years, then the revenue officer ceased of his jurisdiction sdiction to deliver possession. The learned Courts below have relied upon the judgment of this Court in Lall Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -4- 1970 PLR 665,, to hold that where an application seeking delivery of possession is not filed within the prescribed period of three years under Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (as applicable to the Haryana and hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1887), 1887), the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession filed by the aggrieved person. However, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh Vs. Lal Singh etc. AIR 1972 P&H 385 wherein while answering the question 'whether the limitation of three years prescribed under Section 122 of the Act of 1887 for making an application for possession to a Revenue Officer does or does not apply to the proceedings for possession under Section 23(2) or Section 24(1) of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (hereinafter er referred to as the Consolidation Act)', Act) , it was opined that Section 23(2) as well as Section 24(1) of the Consolidation Act merely confer on the Consolidation Officer the power to deliver possession, which is otherwise vested in a Revenue Officer under Section ection 122 of the Act of 1887 but the procedure prescribed in Section 122 requiring an application for possession being made within a specified period of limitation is not applicable to proceedings under Section 23(2) or Section 24(1) of the Consolidation Act for delivery of possession. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumari and another Vs. State of Haryana and others 2025 NCPHHC to contend that a co-sharer co sharer has every right to seek partition of joint land as per his share if other co-sharer co sharer fails to implement the previous partition proceedings within the prescribed statutory period.
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 :::
RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -5-
8. It was further contended that as per Section 158 of the Act of 1887, 1887 a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction jurisd n in any matter which a Revenue O Officer fficer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or take cognizance of the matter er in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer fficer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act, Act, particularly, with resp respect to (i) any ny question as to the limits of any land which which has been defined by a Revenue officer as land to which this Act does or does not apply;
apply; (ii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought and (iii) any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or as to the distribution of land sub subject ject by established custom to periodical re-distribution re distribution or as to the distribution of land land-revenue revenue on the partition of an estate or holding or on a periodical re re-distribution distribution of land, or as to the distribution of rent on the partition of a tenancy. In support port of his contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rejak Laskar Vs. Mafizur Rahman and others 2024 SCC Online SC 3845 to contend that when anything in the CPC is in conflict with anything in the special special or local law or with any special jurisdiction or power conferred or in the special form of procedure prescribed by or under any other law, the Code will not (in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary) prevail so as to override such s inconsistent istent provisions.
9. It was further argued that possession in terms of sanad takseem has ha to be delivered on an application filed under Section 122 of the Act of 1887 and failure to implement or execute the sanad takseem at the spot or refle reflect ct it in revenue records indicates abandonment of partition proceedings by the parties, 5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -6- thus, the only remedy available to the respondents respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs was either to seek fresh partition or file a suit for partition before the Civil Court. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jasrat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2026) 1 RCR (Civil) 222.
10. It was also argued that the land had not been specifically partitioned and, therefore, e, it was not possible to determine in which direction the share of the respondents-plaintiffs respondents plaintiffs would lie. It was lastly argued that Ramesh Kumari, Mani Ram, Hans Raj and Devi Ram were minors and they were not effectively and properly represented before the the revenue court in partition proceedings, as the court guardian appointed for them did did not act in a bona fide manner. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside of the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Bassi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Gursimran Kaur and Ms. Saloni Chhabra, Advocates appearing for the respondents contended that the partition proceedings were validly conducted by the competent revenue authority authority and the plaintiff had been allotted specific land. It was argued that the appellants--defendants had illegally withheld possession of the land as detailed in para No.5 of the plaint and, therefore, the suit for possession was rightly decreed. It was fu further argued that the instrument of partition is given effect as if it were a decree for immovable property and thus, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the title title,, right and interest over the suit property. It was also argued that respondent No.1-plaintiff plaintiff had not abandoned the partition proceedings as he applied for delivery of possession under Section 122 of the Act of 1887 but due to loss of records, 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -7- possession could not be delivered and thus, having left with no other option, he immediately ately approached to the Civil Court by way of suit for possession of the suit property.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the partie partiess and perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance.
13. As per the scheme of the Act of 1887, once an application for partition is filed, any co-sharer co sharer who has been impleaded as a respondent may raise objections relating to a question of title. Such a question may either be decided by the Revenue Officer himself himself or the parties may be directed to approach the Civil Court for its determination, in which case the partition proceedings remain in abeyance until the issue of title is resolved. However, if the Revenue Officer concludes that no question of title arises, he directs the Patwari to prepare a map of the land proposed to be partitioned along with the shares of the applicants seeking partition, known as Naksha Alif.. This document contains details regarding the possession of the co co-sharers, sharers, including any excess or deficient area under their cultivation. Objections may be filed against Naksha Alif by the concerned parties and, after the disposal of such objections, the mode of partition is framed. The mode of partition can be challenged by any party to the proceedings dings through an appeal under Section 118(2) of the Act of 1887.. If no appeal is filed, the mode of partition attains finality. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer proceeds to separate the shares from the joint holding in accordance with the mode of partition and prepares another map called Naksha Be.. This map may still be challenged in appeal on the ground that it is not in conformity with the mode of partition. Once Naksha Be attains finality, it is deemed to be sanctioned and the order of sanction is known as Naksha Zeem Zeem.. The same is communicated 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -8- to the Patwari, Kanoongo, and the parties concerned. After the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, the instrument of partition is prepared by the Revenue Officer on stamp paper. The Revenue Officer is the then n required to put the parties in possession in accordance with the instrument of partition within three years from the date of its preparation.
14. The existence of order dated 17.12.1980 and the partition deed dated 05.02.1981 is not in dispute. It is also lso not disputed that both these orders were never challenged by the appellants-defendants.
appellants defendants. Their objection is only to the effect that limitation for filing application seeking possession under Section 122 of the Act of 1887 in terms of instrument of part partition ition has expired and thus, the respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for partition or proceeded with fresh partition proceedings. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court for entertaining the suit for possession on the basis of instrument of partition was categorically barred by Section 158 of the Act of 1887. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lal Singh's case (supra) has held that in n case the application filed under Section 122 of the Act of 1887 was barred by time, the only effect was that the revenue officer had no jurisdiction to deliver possession and the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to go to the Civil Court. The he Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra),, while discussing the proposition laid lai down in Lal Singh (supra),, has opined that Section 23(2) or Section 24(1) of the Consolidation Act merely confer on the Consolidation Officer the power to deliver possession which is otherwise vested in a Revenue Officer under Section 122 of the Act of 11887 887 but the procedure prescribed in Section 122 requiring an application for possession being made within a specified period of limitation is not applicable to proceedings under 8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -9- Section 23(2) or Section 24(1) of the Consolidation Act for delivery of possession.
sion. Meaning thereby, no provision is made either in Section 23 or Section 24 of the Act of 1887 for possession being changed or delivered only on an application being made by the party entitled to obtain possession. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 1887 1887 cast a duty upon the Consolidation Officer to get the possession changed irrespective of whether an application is or is not made by the party entitled to obtain possession of any particular land. But the said judgment nowhere turned down the finding of the Coordinate Bench in the judgment in Lal Singh (supra), that where the application is not made within the period of three years as prescribed under Section 122 of the Act of 1887, only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to go to the Civil Cour Court.
t. Thus, in a later judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bakhtawar Singh vs. Chand Singh passed in R.S.A. No. 2559 of 1988 on 09.05.1989 while relying upon the judgment passed in Lal Singh (supra) has held that if an application for possession is barred by time under this section, the Revenue Officer loses jurisdiction isdiction to deliver possession and the aggrieved person must seek remedy in the civil court.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in Jhabbar Singh (deceased) through LRs and others Vs. Jagtar Singh (2023) 14 SCC 199 has held as under:-
under:
"37. In our opinion, it is difficult to subscribe the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order that since no instrument of partition was drawn on the date of passing of the decree by the trial court, the joint status of the parties had not come to an end. Having duly considered the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act and also the Haryana Land Records Manual placed on 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -10- record by the learned counsel for the parties, it clearly emerges that as per Section 118 of the Land Revenue Act, wh when en there is a question as to the property to be divided, or the mode of making a partition, the Revenue Officer after such inquiry as he deems necessary, is required to record an order stating his decision on the question and record his reasons for the dec decision. Sub-section section (2) of Section 118 provides for an appeal to be preferred from the decision of the Revenue Officer on the question of property to be divided, or the mode of making the partition. As such, there is no further appeal provided against the oorder rder in appeal passed under Section 118(2) of the Land Revenue Act. Section 119 deals with the administration of the property excluded from partition referred to in sub section (2) of Section 112, with which we are not concerned. sub-section Section 120 deals with the provisions with regard to the distribution of revenue and rent after the partition.
38. The relevant Section 121 states that when the partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared, and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein. If the said provision contained in Section 121 is closely read, it clearly appears that it deals with the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Officer, after the partition is completed. Meaning thereby, thereby, the Revenue Officer after the partition is completed, has to cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and record therein the date on which the partition is to take effect. Therefore, when the inquiry as contemplated in Section 118 on the question question as to the property to be divided, or the mode of making partition is made by the Revenue Officer, and an order stating his decision on the question along with the reasons for such decision is passed, the partition is deemed to have completed, subject to to the decision of appeal that may be preferred against such order as contemplated in sub-section sub section (2) of Section 118.
39. It is pertinent to note that Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act confers discretion upon the Revenue Officer to decide 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -11- the question question as to the title in any property of which the partition is sought, either by himself or to refer the question to be determined by the competent court. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in the cases of partition is concurrent with that of the civil court. Therefore, for the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order 20 Rule 18CPC which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decr decree ee for the partition of the property. The said provision reads as under:
"18. Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein Where the Court passes a therein.--Where decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession off a share therein, then, then,--
(1) if and insofar as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property, but shall direct such partition or separation to be made by the Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of Section 54; (2) if and insofar as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to movable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such further directions ections as may be required."
40. This Court in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna [Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009) 9 SCC 689 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 820] , had an occasion to deal with the said provisions contained in Order 20 Rule 18, and it was observed as under :
(SCC p. 694, para 7) "7. ... In a suit for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -12-
share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to division and separate possession. The decision on these two issues is exercise of a judicial function and results in first stage decision termed as "decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(1) and termed as "preliminary decree" under Order 20 Rule 18(2) of the Code. The consequential division by me metes tes and bounds, considered to be a ministerial or administrative act requiring the physical inspection, measurements, calculations and considering various permutations/combinations/alternatives of division is referred to the Collector under Rule 18(1) and is the subject-
subject matter of the final decree under Rule 18(2)."
41. If the said analogy is applied to the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act pertaining to the partition, we are of the opinion that when a decision is taken by the Revenue Offic Officer er under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the "decree". The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or administrative act to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case instituted bef before ore the Revenue Officer.
Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of the parties would stand severed on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal, if any, preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed.
12 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 :::
RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -13-
42. The first part of Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act states that "when a partition is completed". Meaning thereby, when the issue with regard to the properties to be divided and the mode of making partition stand decided and rights of the parties stand determined by the Revenue Officer, the latter part of Section 121 for preparing the instrument of partition and recording the date of partition would come into play. Such actions required tto o be taken as contained in the latter part of Section 121, would be only an executory work or administrative act to be carried out for completely disposing of the partition case instituted by the party before the Revenue Officer. Just as in case of a decre decreee in civil suit, the adjudication conclusively decides the rights of the parties with regard to the matter in controversy, however the decree would be preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. In tthe he same way, when the decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the A Act.
ct. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case.
43. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Assistant Collector i.e. i.e. Revenue Officer concerned vide the order dated 25-5-1982 25 1982 had rejected the objections raised by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh and others with regard to the mode of partition and had confirmed the mode of partition accordingly. On that day, the "Naksha Be" was already annexed to the file and the case was listed on 31-5-1982 31 1982 for hearing the objections as to the "Naksha Be". On 31-7-1982, 31 1982, the Assistant Collector passed the order stating inter alia that the Patwari and Kanungo were present, and they had explained to the parties about the passage and the boundaries of the explained plots, and that as per "Naksha Be", the partition was accepted. The 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -14- details of the number of khasras allotted to both the parties i.e. to Jhabbar Singh and others and to Jagtar Singh were also m mentioned entioned in the said order.
44. The partition having been accepted as per the said "Naksha Be", the joint status of the parties had stood severed. Of course, the said order dated 31-7-1982 31 1982 was challenged by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh by way of an appeal before before the Collector who vide the order dated 12-10-1982 12 1982 had dismissed the same. The said order of the Collector was further challenged by the said Jagtar Singh by filing revision application before the Commissioner. Though, the Commissioner had initially granted granted stay against the operation of the order dated 31-7-1982 31 1982 up to 16 16-11-1982, 1982, admittedly the said stay was not further extended thereafter."
16. In a suit for partition or separation of share, the court at the first stage determines whether the plaintiff plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether he is entitled to its division and separate possession. This determination constitutes a judicial function and results in a first first-stage stage decision termed as a "decree" under Order XX Rule 18(1) and a "preliminar "preliminaryy decree" under Order XX Rule 18(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subsequent division by metes and bounds, involving inspection, measurement, and calculations, is regarded as a ministerial or administrative act and is referred to the Collector under Rule 18(1), ultimately leading to the final decree under Rule 18(2). Applying the same analogy to the provisions of the of the Act of 1887 relating to partition, once the Revenue Officer decides under Section 118 the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand determined and the partition is deemed to be complete. Such a decision is to be treated as a "decree." The subsequent preparation of the instrument of partition under Section 121 is merely a ministerial or administrative step undertaken to 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -15- formally conclude the proceedings. Therefore, once the Revenue Officer decides the property to be partitioned and the mode of partition, the joint status of the parties stands severed from the date of that decision, ssubject ubject to any appeal.
The preparation of the instrument of partition is only a consequential executory act and its absence does not mean that the partition has not been completed or that the parties continue to remain joint.
17. Once the rights and status of the parties stand determined and the partition is deemed to be complete, such a decision is treated as a "decree" and the joint status of the parties stand severed from the date of said decision. In the case in hand, the instrument of partition was pr prepared epared on 05.02.1981. Since the respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 plaintiff had not filed the application for obtaining possession in terms of the instrument of partition within a period of three years from the date recorded for possession in the said instrument under Sect Section ion 122 of the Act of 1887, the remedy available to him was to approach the Civil Court. Once the Instrument of Partition had a status of "decree"
"decree",, which accrued enforceable rights in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, No.1 plaintiff, jurisdiction of the Civil Court had ha not been taken away by provisions of Section 158 of the Act of 1887 and the Civil Court was well within its jurisdiction to determine the right viz; possession to the suit property by respondent No.1-plaintiff, No.1 plaintiff, as had been determined in the instrument of partition.
18. Furthermore, the learned Courts below have rightly dealt with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to land being not specifically partitioned and, therefore, it was not possible to determine in which direction the share of the respondents respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs would lie as well as 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 ::: RSA No.2463 of 1995 (O&M) -16- effective and proper representation of the minors before the learned trial Court by the court guardian and this Court, affirms the said findings.
19. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar Gurcharan an 875, questions of Singh (dead) through LRs and others (2023) SCC Online SC 875 law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, A 1918.
20. As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by both the Courts below and the same are hereby upheld.
upheld Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.
21. Pending application(s), application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
March 09,, 2026
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 06:00:05 :::