SAEEDUDDIN Vs. KARIMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 08.2.2000 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Saeeduddin seeking partition and rendition of accounts qua his 1/3rd share in the property bearing No.141, Khureji Khas, Delhi had been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF had filed the aforenoted suit. His contention was that Karimmuddin and Allauddin, defendants no.1 and 2 had purchased the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.141, Municipal No.105, constructed on land measuring 266 sq. yards from Smt. Khimiya widow of Abdul Gani. This purchase was made for a consideration of Rs.71,000.00 o 10.5.1982. Defendants no.1 and 2 later on transferred 1/3rd of their share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on a consideration of Rs.23,700.00. Symbolic possession of his 1/3rd share has also been given to the plaintiff on 10.9.1984. Plaintiff was thus the co-owner of 1/3rd share in the said property along with defendants no.1 and 2. Defendants no.3 to 6 were the tenants in the suit property; they had attorned themselves to defendants no.1 and 2 and had been paying rent to them. Defendants no.7 to 15 had been impleaded as parties in terms of the orders of the High Court dated 02.02.1984 passed in Civil Revision No.328/1993. They were claiming right in this property on the basis of a forged will dated 08.5.1983 purported to have been executed by Khimiya pursuant to which a collusive decree had been passed on 27.8.1984. It is contended that the defendants no.7 to 15 are not in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff had requested defendants no.1 and 2 to partition his share of the suit property but they had not acceded to his request. Present suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) DEFENDANTS no.3 and 6 had denied that they had attorned to defendants no.1 and 2 as their landlords or that they had paid any rent to them. Defendants no.4 and 5 admitted their tenancy with Khimiya as also the fact that they were paying rent to defendants no.1 and 2. Possession of the plaintiff was denied.