MOHAN SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for partition of properties and recovery of possession of one room on the ground floor of premises bearing No. B- 389, Gali No. 4, Majlis Park, Delhi. The present suit was initially filed by Mohan Singh against his brothers Mahendra Singh, Sujan Singh, Arjun Singh and sister Shashi Bala (defendants No. 1 to 4 respectively). The defendant No. 2 Sujan Singh died during the pendency of the suit and his wife Sarbansh Kaur was impleaded in his place. The defendant Arjun Singh also died and was substituted by his wife and sons. The case of the plaintiff was that three properties bearing No. B-389, 290 A-Block and 291 A-Block, all in Majlis Park, Delhi were owned and purchased by their father in the name of their mother Motia Devi. Their mother Motia Devi died in the year 1982 leaving behind her husband, the plaintiff and the defendants as her legal heirs. Their father also expired in the year 1985 and thus, after his death, the plaintiff and the defendants became the co-owners of the aforesaid properties. The case of the plaintiff was that his brother Arjun Singh took his share and relinquished his rights in his favour and that of the defendants No. 1 and 2. Likewise, his sister defendant No. 4 gave oral consent and relinquished all her rights in his favour and defendants

(2.) The defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 filed their common written statement. They all disputed the case as set up by the plaintiff. They had raised the preliminary objection stating that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of deceased Sujan Singh (defendant No. 2) are not impleaded. The jurisdiction of this court was also disputed as value of the suit property was stated to be below Rs. 20 lakhs. On merits, their case was that the properties No. B-389 and 291 were purchased by the defendant No. 1 from his own funds and it is he, who is the owner of these properties. The property No. 290 was stated to have been already sold by defendant No. 1. It was their case that the plaintiff had taken his shares and shifted to Calcutta in 1973-74 and has no right in the suit properties. It was all denied that the defendant No. 3 Arjun Singh and defendant No. 4 Shashi Bala relinquished their rights and shares in the properties in the manner as alleged by the plaintiff. It was their case that the defendants No. 2 and 4 have exchanged their rights in property No. 290 A-Block with the rights of the plaintiff in B-389 and by this oral understanding, the second floor was given to the defendant No. 1 and the ground floor to the defendant No. 4. It was also averred that the plaintiff has occupied the major portion of ground floor of B-389 taking advantage of the absence of defendant No. 4 and for which, she has filed a suit for possession and injunction against him. The case was tried on the following issues:

(3.) The plaintiff Praveen Kumar Arora S/o deceased Mohan Singh was the only witness examined by the plaintiffs. He led his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A). The defendant No. 1 Mahendra Singh examined himself as DW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit.