Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos 1055610558 of 2010

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol

Order Date: 24.07.2023

Facts of the Case:

• The present case involves a property dispute between two brothers, Gurbachan Singh and Gurcharan Singh, over a piece of land they inherited from their father, Suchet Singh. Gurcharan Singh bought a portion of the property from his brother Faqir Singh through a valid sale deed. However, Gurbachan Singh claimed that Faqir Singh did not have exclusive ownership or possession rights to sell the property and forcibly took possession of the land. 
• Gurcharan Singh filed a suit for possession before the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar, which ruled in favor of Gurbachan Singh. The Additional District Judge also upheld this decision on the grounds that there was no evidence of a family partition and no entry in the revenue record to support the claim. 
• However, Gurcharan Singh appealed the decision, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The High Court found that there was evidence of a partition by their father, Suchet Singh, during his lifetime. The High Court also noted that Gurcharan Singh had made constructions on the purchased property, indicating his possession. 
• Gurbachan Singh filed the present appeals against the High Court’s decision, arguing that the court exceeded the scope of the second appeal and that a co-sharer does not have the right to possession. The Appellant also contended that the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence.

THE HON’ BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:

• The court rules that the High Court did not exceed the scope of the second appeal in this case as it arose from a dispute in Punjab and therefore, the rigors of Section 100 of CPC did not apply. 
• The court holds that the principles of law cited by the Appellant, stating that a co-sharer cannot claim possession without a partition, do not support their case. The court finds evidence of a partition by their father and that Gurcharan Singh had rightfully purchased and possessed the disputed property. 
• The court examines the evidence and witnesses’ statements and finds that the lower courts had ignored material evidence regarding the partition of the property. The court holds that the High Court’s reappreciation of evidence was justified as it revealed material irregularities in the lower courts’ findings. 
• The court upholds the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeals as lacking in merit. The judgment and orders of the High Court are upheld, and the appeals are dismissed with no costs awarded.