KANWALA RAM Vs. SWARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27 February 1992 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing with costs the suit filed by the appellants against the respondent for separate possession by partition and in the alternative for joint possession in respect of the plot No. J-107, New Delhi South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, included in Khasra No. 143, Kotia Mubarakpur, New Delhi.

(2.) The appellants herein and plaintiffs in the suit, had acquired and obtained possession of the said plot along with some other plots vide Exchange Deed dated 11 April 1961 from one Chandi Ram. In the Exchange Deed the size of the plot was stated as 273-1/2 sq. yds. By Sale Deed dated 01 May 1964, the plot was sold to the respondent. The appellants claimed that even after execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent, they were joint owners and in joint possession of the said plot with 207/480 and 273/480 share respectively, but the respondent had raised a building on one side of the joint land without their consent and knowledge, which had cast a cloud on their title. They alleged that despite their repeated oral requests and a telegram dated 22 April 1976 to the respondent to partition the said property and to settle the matter, she has failed to do so and, therefore, on 28 April 1976 they had to file the suit for partition and separate possession of their share and in the alternative joint possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent, inter alia, on the pleas that the appellants had no right, title or interest in any portion of the suit land as they had sold the entire plot with all their rights and titles in the plot to her vide sale deed dated 01 May 1964; after purchase the respondent had got the plan sanctioned for construction of a 2-1/2 storeyed building on the plot in May 1964 and thereafter started the construction; the appellants and the respondent were never joint owners of the said plot and therefore the suit for partition was not maintainable. Some legal pleas of the suit being not properly valued and the plaint disclosed no cause of action, now not relevant, were also raised.