GURUDWARA SHRI AKALIDHAR SINGH SABHA Vs. NAROLI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment -debtor has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (1). Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sundernagar, whereby the courts below have rejected the objections of the appellant and directed the preparation of final decree.

(2.) THE suit land comprised in Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 92, khasra No. 1030, 1031, 1032, 1035 Kitas 4 measuring 576 sq. mts. situate in Muhal Ropa/26/1, Tehsil Sundernagar District Mandi and was sought to be partitioned and preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial court on 11.4.1997. Since the appellant was minor, therefore, vide order dated 16.12.2000 Sh. B.S. Sen, Advocate was appointed as court guardian for the minor. On 26.6.2011, Tehsildar Sundernagar was appointed as Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition in pursuance of preliminary decree passed by the learned trial court. When the proceedings were pending, Brij Bhushan and Kanta Devi sought their impleadment in the case, which was allowed by the trial court on 27.5.2003. The objections to the report of the Local Commissioner were filed and as per order dated 21.4.2007, the same were accepted and fresh reference was made to the Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition. The report, in compliance to the order of the court, was received on 26.3.2008, against which objections were filed by the judgment debtor on 16.11.2009 and reply thereto was filed on 17.1.2010 and thereafter on 23.2.2010, the learned trial court framed the following issues: -

(3.) ON the other hand in the reply to the objections, the decree holder (respondents herein) contended that the same were not maintainable and on merits it was stated that Gurdwara was situated over khasra No. 1035, which had not been allotted to the respondents. It was further averred that khasra No. 1030 had been rightly allotted to the respondents and that the appellant had no right to create tenancy over the premises and, therefore, the respondents (decree holders) were not bound by such tenancy.