ANANTPURI GOSWAMI Vs. DAMODAR PURI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 96 C.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 27/8/2018 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No.6-A/2018 whereby, the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for declaration of 1/6th share in the suit properties i.e. the houses situated at Bemetara (details of 8 houses were mentioned at para10 of the Plaint) for their partition, separate possession and injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) It is undisputed that the parties are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara, Banaras Branch. Defendant No.1 is the father of the Appellant/Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 are his brothers and sister. It is also not disputed that the ancestral agricultural land to the tune of 42 acres had already been partitioned on 22/7/1983 vide Ex.D-1. The Appellant/Plaintiff had filed the present suit on 23/4/2011 alleging that Defendant No.1/father had purchased the suit houses situated at Nagar Palika area, Bemetara from the income of the joint Hindu family being Manager of the said family and the same were purchased in the name of his brothers i.e. Defendants No.2 to 4 namely Arvind Puri Goswami, Yogesh Puri Goswami and Jaishankar Puri Goswami and it was averred that late Nilkanth Puri Goswami, who is the grand father of the Appellant/Plaintiff and father of Defendant No.1 was the owner of the residential house situated at Ward No.14, Durg Road, Bemetara. The said house being ancestral, fallen in the share of Defendant No.1 by way of a family partition. It was further averred that out of the income of the joint Hindu family, Defendant No.1 had purchased other properties i.e. house No.100 in the name of Yogesh Puri Goswami, house No.112 in the name of Arvind Puri Goswami and house No.113 in the name of Jaishankar Puri Goswami, therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff is also entitled to the share in the suit house as the property was purchased from the income of the joint Hindu family. Defendant No.1/father, in his written statement, had categorically denied all the averments made in the Plaint and it was alleged that only the ancestral property situated at village Singhouri has fallen in his share in a family partition and the said property has been equally partitioned on 22/7/1983. The suit houses were purchased after division of the joint family and from his own income, he had given the suit houses to Defendants No.2 to 4. It is further alleged that from 1956 to 1965, he had been in a Government job working as a Teacher and Clerk and also worked as a Stamp vendor, thus, he had acquired such properties from the said income.

(3.) Defendants No.2 to 4, in their reply, denied the averments made in the Plaint and have stated that the Appellant/Plaintiff had already received his share in the ancestral property and as they are the owners of the suit properties i.e. the houses which were recorded in their names, therefore, he cannot claim any share in the said properties.