JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present appeal had been filed in Aug., 2013 and since then, the case has been lingering on in motion hearing. Time and again, adjournments had been sought and at one stage, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.02.2015, but the appeal was restored, vide order dated 02.03.2015. Thereafter, adjournments had been sought on one ground or the other. On the last date also, the same request was made. Even today also, the request for adjournment has been made, but this Court did not accept the same and proceeded further to decide the case.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law in a suit for separate possession by way of partition of plot/property house bearing khewat no.68, khatoni no.87 consisting of khasra no.40//3/1/0k-15 gair mumkin abadi situated in village Gazipur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, vide jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and the consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint order from changing the nature of the suit land on the premise that plaintiffs and defendants are in joint ownership of the property and plaintiffs are owners to the extent of share, i.e., 7 marlas of land and the defendants are owners with regard to remaining half share. A dispute arose between the parties and they had agreed for mutual partition, but on 10.07.2015, the defendants threatened the plaintiffs not to partition the property and disturb the possession. They also threatened to make further construction. It has been pleaded that Bachan Singh son of Jawala Singh had died and the defendants are his legal heirs.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants on the premise that property was purchased by father of the defendants - Bachan Singh, measuring 8 marlas from Kirpal Singh, vide sale deed 08.03.1968 and 4 marlas were purchased by them from Inder Singh, vide sale deed dated 11.07.1972 and from Beant Singh also, vide sale deed dated 19.03.1984. After construction, the defendants were residing in the same very house for the last about 20-21 years. The plaintiffs had already relinquished their right in the property of their father in view of writing dated 14.09.1973. The plaintiffs also did not disclose about the earlier suit.