CHANDER BHAN Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Bhagwan Dass-plaintiff (respondent no.1 in this appeal) had filed the Suit for partition of property No.3719, Ward No. 12, Babaji Ki Baghichi, Near Parag Ice Factory, Subzi Mandi, Delhi -110 007. It was filed on the basis of averments in the plaint that respondent no. 1 and his uncle - Shri Chhote Lal had jointly purchased the said property. Since Shri Chhote Lal had died, his legal heirs were impleaded in the said Suit of partition as defendants 1 to 9. The appellant herein, who is the real brother of plaintiff, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for Civil Procedure for impleadment and was impleaded as defendant no. 10. The defendants (including the appellant herein) pleaded that the Suit property was purchased from the funds of Hindu Undivided Family. According to them, half share of the Suit property belonged to the legal heirs of Shri Chhote Lal and the other half share was to be divided by plaintiff, defendant no. 10 (appellant herein) and Shri Tej Ram-another brother of the plaintiff.

(2.) There was no dispute that half share in the Suit property is to be given to the legal heirs of Shri Chhote Lal namely, defendants 1 to 9 and plaintiff accepted this position. In fact his case was that he and Chhote Lal had jointly purchased the property and therefore they were joint owners of the property to the extent of half share each in the Suit property. The dispute, therefore, was as to whether defendant No. 10 (appellant herein) is also co-sharer in the property in question. On this following additional issue was framed by the learned Trial Court:" Whether defendant no. 10 is also co-sharer in the property which is the subject matter of the Suit?"

(3.) The learned Trial Court has observed, while deciding this issue in favour of the plaintiff, that in view of the registered document in favour of the plaintiff there was a presumption in his favour that he has purchased the property in his individual capacity and very strong evidence was required to rebutt this presumption. It was further recorded that no such evidence was led by the defendants. No evidence could be produced to prove that property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff as Karta of Joint Hindu Family.