Jitender Sharma v. Raj Kumar And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2091 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.18.03.2019 Jitender Sharma ...Appellant Vs Raj Kumar and another

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The short point involved in the present appeal is whether the impugned sale deed dated 24.12.2012 of the defendants, who had purchased share from the erstwhile owner can be set aside without seeking relief of partition, the answer would be 'no' for the simple reason that status of defendants by virtue of sale deed was of cosharers. The remedy lied for partition. This is what has been noticed by the Courts below. Plaintiff could have sought separate possession by way of partition.

In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 18, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.03.20 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document