JAI PARKASH Vs. RISAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that late Shri Babban, grandfather of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 and great grandfather of defendants 6 to 8 and deceased Shri Pratap, was the owner and in possession of land measuring 1000 sq. yards, situated in village Burari Garhi, Delhi. Defendants 9 to 16 are the legal heirs of deceased Shri Pratap. The pedigree table would show that Babban had two sons, namely, Neki Ram and Phool Singh. Neki Ram died leaving behind three sons, namely, defendant No. 1 Risal Singh, defendant No. 2 Om Prakash and the plaintiff Jai Prakash. Phool Singh died leaving three sons behind, namely, defendant No. 3 Ram Niwas, defendant No. 4 Siri Niwas and defendant No. 5 Surinder. Defendants 6 to 8 are the sons of defendant No. 1 Risal Singh. Shri Pratap was the fourth son of defendant No. 4. Risal Singh died leaving behind defendants No. 9 to 16 as his legal heirs.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that he along with defendants 1 to 5 are entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have served a legal notice dated 02.04.2009 upon the defendants seeking partition. It is alleged that the service of notice was avoided by the defendants. The plaintiff is now seeking partition of the suit property and also an injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise parting with the same.

(3.) IT is alleged in para 1 of the amended plaint that the suit property is situated in old Abadi Deh (Lal Dora) of village Burari Garhi. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to Ex.PW-1/1 which is the certified copy of the plaint in a civil suit filed by Attar Singh and others against the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. Deceased Shri Pratap, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 9 to 16 was also a party to the suit. It was alleged in para 1 of the plaint of that suit that the plaintiffs in that suit, i.e., Attar Singh and others were the absolute owners of a house measuring 1000 sq. yards, situated in the old deh of village Burari (Garhi), Delhi. It is thus confirmed that the property in question is situated in the Abadi of Village Burari Garhi, Delhi. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff despite efforts has not been able to lay hands on any revenue record with respect to Khasra No. 146 (New) of Village Burari Garhi of which the suit land forms a part. Ex.PW-1/2 is the certified copy of the written statement filed in that suit. It is stated in para 1 of the written statement that the property in dispute was owned and possessed by the defendants in that suit who were in its actual physical possession. It was also stated that the property was the ancestral property of the defendants in that suit. Thus, this written statement contains an admission on the part of the defendants 1 to 8 and predecessor-in-interest of defendants 9 to 16 to the effect that the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by them. The suit filed by Attar Singh was dismissed vide judgment, copy of which is Ex.PW-1/3. The appeal filed by Attar Singh and others against that judgment was dismissed in default vide order dated 19.12.2000, certified copy of which is Ex.PW-1/4.