KRISHAN CHAND Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, cast under article 227, of Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge, the, order borne in Annexure P-7, wherethrough, the petitioners' Revision Petition No. 78 of 2018, hence, stood dismissed. The dispute engaging the contesting litigants, appertains, to the validity of drawing of mode of partition, vis-a-vis, the joint holdings comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 58/66-67, Kita 6, area measuring 2-70-76 hectare, situated in village Khudla/488, illaqua Hatali, Sub Tehsil Baldwara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P (for short "joint holdings").

(2.) The genesis of the afore dispute, arose, in the year 1998, whereat the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, had, instituted an application, before the Revenue Officer concerned, hence, seeking therethrough dismemberment of the joint estate, inter-se, them and the petitioners herein, rather through metes and bounds. However, the afore endeavor of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 herein, stood, hotly contested, by the petitioners herein, on, the ground of theirs acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the joint holdings rather by adverse possession, (i) and, thereupon they espoused that the predecessor- in-interest of respondent No.1 herein, held no valid title in the joint holdings, nor, hence he can motion the Revenue Officer concerned, for, seeking dismemberment of the joint holdings, rather through metes and bounds. However, In paragraph 7 of Annexure P-7, the afore plea was negated by all the Revenue Courts, and, also this Court vide its judgment of 17.10.2014, hence, upheld the pronouncements made by the Revenue Courts, and, thereupon, it is invincibly concluded that (a) the respondents held, a, valid, and, subsisting right qua the joint holdings, and, also they had, a, valid right to seek its dismemberment, through, the aegis of Revenue Officer(s), rather, through metes and bounds. Since conclusivity, vis-a-vis, the findings qua the afore facets, is hence acquired, thereupon, an, alike therewith challenge, cast by the petitioners herein, warrants its rejection, as otherwise, it would make conflict with the solemn principle, of res judicata, and, of the principle of estoppel.

(3.) Further more, the objections raised by the petitioners herein, vis-a-vis, the afore motion of the respondents herein, (i) statutory motions whereof, were, contested by the petitioners herein, by raising objections, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the drawing of mode of partition, (ii) however, as concluded in paragraph 8, of, the impugned order, the objections raised therein, are not, the ones which stand nowat raised, by the petitioners herein, (iii) thereupon, when at the initial stage of the petitioners objecting to the drawing(s) of the mode of partition, they had an opportunity, to, raise all objections inclusive the one raised hereat, and, when they omitted to raise objections, vis-a-vis, the validity of drawing of mode of partition, (iv) thereupon, theirs rearing fresh objections to the mode of parties, despite conclusivity standing acquired, vis-a-vis, the earlier order hence rejecting their objections, is, squarely and directly hit, by the principle constituted, in, Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it is graphically postulated, vis-a-vis, all objections being rearable at the outset, also, the afore principle rather barring them, to, rear fresh cause of action or rather fresh objections.