MEHNGA SINGH Vs. SANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFICIENCY in court fee is said to have been made good. The application is, therefore, allowed.

(2.) THIS is application for impleading legal representatives of plaintiff no.4 Harpal Singh (since deceased). It is alleged that Harpal Singh has left behind widow and a minor son and a minor daughter, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, as his legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of Harpal Singh (since deceased) for the purpose of this appeal and are permitted to file the appeal as such. Main Appeal : THIS is second appeal by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and legal representatives of plaintiff no.4. Plaintiffs were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court. Plaintiffs' case is that plaintiff no.1 is co-sharer to the extent of 25 kanals 05 marlas and plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are co-sharers to the extent of 18 kanals 18? marlas each in joint land measuring 448 kanals 03 marlas. Partition order dated 02.05.1991 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur, as affirmed in appeal by Collector vide order dated 11.05.1992 and in revision by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 28.11.1996, is null and void etc. because plaintiffs have been allotted lesser land than their share in the joint land.

(3.) HOWEVER, first appeal preferred by defendants no.1 and 2 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2010 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, instant second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and legal representatives of plaintiff no.4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.