SAADIQ MOHAMMED CHUNCHLA Vs. MOHAMMEDHANIF A MAJID CHUNCHLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the original defendants against whom the respondents- original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2002 for declaration that the defendants have no right or title in the suit property and they are not entitled to make use of the suit property and they are also not entitled to make plotting in the suit property and to transfer the plots. The prayer for partition of the suit property is also made.

(2.) IT the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are sons of the uncle of the plaintiffs and the suit property was given to the father of the plaintiffs and the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 jointly under the provisions of Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act and they have become owners by inheritance of the suit property under the Tenancy Act and there was no equal partition of the joint family properties between the parties and for whatever land the parties are in possession, the same is not according to the equal partition between the parties and, therefore, the suit is filed for partition of the suit property. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the land bearing Survey No.767 was in possession of the father of the plaintiffs right from 1977 and presently, in possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants have got no right to interfere with the right of the plaintiffs in the said land. Plaintiffs have thus prayed for declaration about their rights in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property and for partition of the suit property.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the defendants have not challenged the evidence of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs at Exh.113 and 114 and simply because, Kabulatnama was not got registered by the plaintiffs, that by itself is no ground not to believe kabulatnama relied on by the plaintiffs. Learned Trial Judge further came to the conclusion that the defendants have no right or title to the land bearing Survey No.767 admeasuring 1 acre and 1 guntha. Learned Trial Judge thus partly allowed the suit and declared that the appellants - defendant Nos.1 to 4 have got no right or title in land bearing Survey No.767 admeasuring 1 acre and 1 guntha and restrained the defendants by permanent injunction from interfering with the possession and ownership right of the plaintiffs for the said land and also restrained the defendants from alienating or in any way transferring the said land. Learned Trial Judge, however, rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for partition of the suit land and ordered the parties to get their names recorded in the Government record on the basis of the partition recorded in document Exh.112.