ROSHAN SINGH Vs. ZILE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of a learned single Judge in Suit No. 231 of 1979, in which the claim was for a declaration or alternative relief for *Against judgment of D. R. Khanna J., D/- 18-4-1980. partition and injunction. The plaintiffs, who are now respondents 1 to 4 are four brothers, sons of Shri Soonda. The defendants were the widow, three sons and two daughters of Shri Puran Singh. The present appeal has been filed by the three sons whereas the widow and two daughters of Shri Puran Singh are respondents 5 to 7. The relationship between the parties is indicated from the pedigree table reproduced below : (see page 162 for Pedigree Table) It will be seen from the same that all the parties are descendants from a common ancestor, Chattar Singh. The family had ancestral property consisting of agricultural land and residential property in village Nasirpur, Delhi. The agricultural land was partitioned between Puran Singh and Soonda in 1955. There was a formal mutation to that effect in the Revenue record on llth June, 1955. There was another partition concerning the residential properties, i.e., the houses, gher/ghatwar and a memorandum of partition was written on 3rd August, 1955, which is Exhibit P-12 on the record. According to this partition, a residential house and some open space marked A-l to A-2 in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1 fell to the share of Puran Singh. Soonda got the house B-l.

(2.) These two partitions are not disputed to the extent mentioned above. The dispute is about some other property shown in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1. According to the plaintiffs, Soonda got ghers B-2 to B-5 shown in the yellow colour in the plan Exhibit P. W. 25/1. The gher shown as A-3 was allotted to Puran Singh. The total area of A-l to A-3 and B-l to B-5 was 2,417 sq. yards. According to the plaintiffs, the property was so allotted so as to equate the areas, to bring about this equation ghers B-3 and B-4 were given to Soonda by Puran Singh from his Khasra No. 439/1.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed that the separate exclusive possession of the shares mentioned in the memorandum of partition were retained by the parties till February, 1971, when there was a dispute between the parties because the plaintiffs wanted to make some" construction on the gher marked B-2, but defendants 1 to 3 demolished the wall and there were criminal proceedings under Chhattar Singh | ^ 1 Jai Ram Ram Lal 1 \ I Puran Smgh Bhagwana Sunda Ram (Smt. Dhan Kaur (died issueless prior widow) to 1916-17) Roshan Bharat Chander Smt. Smt. Zile Singh Raj Karan Dharam MahaSing Singh Bhan Hukam Lado Vir bir Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the property B-2 belonged to defendants 1 to 3. This is why the suit has been filed.