MALUKI @ RAJ DECD Vs. AJAY KUMAR @ DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONCE again, a request for adjournment is made by learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. On the facts of the case, as stated hereinafter, there is no valid reason to grant an adjournment. I have, therefore, heard learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 30.7.2011 by which the trial Court most surprisingly dismissed the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs being the mother and sisters, against the respondent/brother/defendant, although, the respondent/brother/defendant was ex parte in the trial Court. The trial Court has dismissed the suit for partition and rendition of accounts on the strange reasoning that the appellants failed to prove that they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Nanak Chand, who was the owner of the property. The trial Court has also held that the photocopy of the rent deed, Ex.P1 was exhibited, however, the same cannot be looked into as no witness was called to prove the same.

(3.) IT may be noted that the mother-Smt. Maluki died intestate after the dismissal of the suit and, therefore, now there are only three legal heirs of deceased Sh.Nanak Chand i.e. two daughters being appellants/plaintiffs and one son/defendant/respondent.