PHOOL WATI Vs. TEEJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for partition was decreed with respect to the property E-16/1662, Bapa Nagar, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. THE Trial Court held that the subject property was the property of the father of the parties, namely the plaintiffs who are the daughters and the late defendant no.1, Nanak Chand who was the adopted son. THE Trial court therefore held that on the death of Ghasi Ram the father, the property devolved in equal shares on all his daughters and son namely the plaintiffs and now deceased defendant no. 1 respectively.

(2.) THE relevant issue as dealt with by the Trial Court was issue no. 1 and it is necessary to reproduce the same, and which reads as under:-

(3.) IN my opinion, it was also required that the defendant no. 1/Nanak Chand, and thereafter the appellants who are legal heirs of Sh.Nanak Chand, to have proved the incurring of alleged costs by Nanak Chand for constructing the property. Admittedly, there is not a single piece of documentary evidence on record of financial capacity of Nanak Chand or the fact that Nanak Chand spent monies for construction of the property. This in fact could not be so inasmuch as the Trial Court has clearly recorded that Nanak Chand would be barely about 10 years in 1942-43 when the property was allegedly occupied by him.