R N SAWHNEY Vs. ROSHAN LAL SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lajpat Rai Sawhney had purchased and built property bearing no. 30/5-6 Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in an auction from Ministry of Rehabilitation in the year 1955. After having purchased the property he had applied for transfer of the ownership rights in his favour to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, P Block, New Delhi. He died on 26/7/1957 leaving behind two sons Ram Nath and one Pishori Lal. Pishori Lal has since died leaving behind his wife who had also died besides Roshan Lal, defendant no.1 and Swaran Kanta, defendant no.2.

(2.) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the property and rendition of accounts asserting that his brother Pishori Lal died in 1977. After the death of Pishori Lal his wife and children for substitution of their names as successors in interest of Pishori Lal with respect to his 1/2 share in the above said property. It was so transferred. Pishori Lal was in the military service and after his retirement he shifted on the ground floor of the property. Plaintiff asserts that defendant no.1 who is the son of Pishori Lal is now collecting rent of the first floor of the suit property for self and on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had thought it expedient and called upon defendant no.1 for partition of the property. It has not been done claiming that he is the owner to the extent 1/2 share. The present civil suit referred to above has been filed.

(3.) In the written statement filed defendant no.1 has contested the civil suit. It is asserted that the suit is not maintainable because plaintiff has no right to claim the partition of the property which exclusively belonged to defendant no.1. The plaintiff has already taken the properties which were jointly owned and disposed of the same without giving the defendants any share. It included agricultural land and houses in the village in Punjab which is the native place of the plaintiff and the defendants. Plaintiff is also alleged to have spent the entire savings of his father without giving defendant no.1 any share in it. The suit is stated to be not maintainable.