RAM MANOHAR Vs. JAGGOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit claiming co-tenancy rights over the plots as detailed at the foot of the plaint. A copy of the plaint is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. THE same mentions two Khatas, namely Khata No. 137 and Khata No. 83. THE number of the plots are also detailed therein. THE cotenancy rights were being claimed on the basis of the following pedigree : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_731_ADJ1_2012Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) THE plaint alleges succession through a common ancestor Naguwa. THE respondents 1 and 2 are the sons of Dukhi and they claim l/3rd share in the entire holdings. THE basis of the claim was that their names appear to have been left out in the Khatauni and therefore in view of the pedigree aforesaid they deserve to be declared co-tenants to the extent of 1/3rd share of the property which is ancestral. THE plaint nowhere indicates any of the property to have been acquired from joint family funds either by Phudda or by the sons of Phudda.

(3.) A second appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed as the Board of Revenue did not find any substantial question of law arising in the matter. Aggrieved the present petition was filed assailing the aforesaid judgment and orders of the Courts below.