Widow And Daughter Fail To Stop Relatives’ Construction On Family Land As P&H HC Upholds Finding Of Prior Partition

The plaintiffs, the widow and daughter of Rikhi Ram, sought a permanent injunction, claiming that the disputed property was jointly owned and possessed by the parties as successors to Jamal.

The defendants contended that a family partition had taken place during Rikhi Ram’s lifetime, leaving the plaintiffs in exclusive possession of a separate portion, and sought partition by counterclaim.

The plaintiffs denied the partition and claimed that they had purchased the disputed area from Faqir Chand in 1985.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the property had been partitioned and rejecting the plaintiffs’ purchase claim; the first appellate court affirmed.

The plaintiffs appealed against those concurrent findings.

It applied the principle that interference in a regular second appeal is not warranted where the concurrent factual findings of the courts below are supported by the evidence and no question of law arises.

The Court also assessed the plaintiffs’ claim of title by examining the documentary and oral evidence, including the asserted sale deed and the vendor’s testimony.

The Court found no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the plaintiffs’ site plan over the defendants’ plan, but concluded that this did not establish the plaintiffs’ title to the disputed area.

The courts below had disbelieved the asserted purchase from Faqir Chand: the sale deed in Rikhi Ram’s name was unregistered and was treated as unreliable, while the evidence did not establish that Faqir Chand had owned the property or could validly sell it to the plaintiffs.

The Court considered the defendants’ account of a family partition more probable and found the concurrent factual conclusions supported by the evidence.

As no question of law arose and the concurrent findings did not warrant interference, the regular second appeal was dismissed.

Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.