LAWS(DLH)-1993-7-60

FAQIR CHAND Vs. LILA RAM

Decided On July 15, 1993
FAQIR CHAND Appellant
V/S
LILA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been broughtagainst the judgment and decree dated 9/08/1974, of an AdditionalDistrict Judge by which he had allowed the appeal of respondent Lila Ramagainst judgment and decree dated 31/01/1974, of a Sub-Judge and haddismissed the suit brought by the appellant against the respondent whereinreliefs of mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction and rendition ofaccounts were claimed.

(2.) The dispute pertains to property bearing municipal No. 1 152 (OldNo. 272) situated in Gali Samosan, Farash Khana, Delhi. Admittely thisproperty was owned by Bhola Ram, father of the appellant. Lila Ramrespondent and one Kishan Lal. In 1921 Kishan Lal brought a suit forpartition and decree for partition was made and portion which is in browncolour in map Ex. Public Witness 3/2 had fallen to the share of Kishan Lal andultimately that portion also had been purchased by Lila Ram-respondent. In1983 the partition deed was executed between Bhola Ram and Lila Ram Ex.PW 3/1 which was duly registered and the map duly signed by the partieswas also registered which is Ex. Public Witness 3/2. The portion which fell to the shareof Bhola Ram is shown in light blue colour while the portion which fell tothe share of Lila Ram is shown in dark blue colour. A portion in red colouris shown as joint passage for the parties and beyond the joint passage shownin red colour, there exists a courtyard which is located in front of the cons-tructed portion which fell to the share of Bhola Ram. The portion in browncolour is located on the western side of the said courtyard.

(3.) The case set up in the plaint by the appellant is that this particularcourtyard of compound, which is marked as ABC&D in the plan Ex. P-1 filedalong with the plaint, in accordance with the partition deed and the mappartitioning the properly which was duly registered, fell to the share ofappellant's father and the respondent bad started bringing drums in the saidopen courtyard for storing the same in the brown portion of the propertyand he had no right to use the courtyard at all and thus, a perpetual injunction was sought restraining the respondent from in any manner using thesaid courtyard.