ARJUN Vs. JHAGDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

(2.) Plaintiff respondent No.1 is father and plaintiff respondent No.2 is his son. Similarly, defendant appellant No.1 are father and defendants appellants No.2 & 3 are his sons. Fathers i.e. plaintiff respondent No.1 and defendant appellant No.1 are real brothers. The relationship was admitted by the parties. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that partition had already taken place and parties were in possession of the portions which had come in their shares in the prior partition. Property in dispute is constructed portions and adjoining abadi land.

(3.) The plaintiffs and their witnesses had admitted that for several years the parties were residing in separate portions and they were separate in fooding also. Trial court held that this amounted to prior partition. Regarding the house towards north adjacent to the road Brijmohan plaintiff No.2 stated that the house of Arjun (defendant) which was on the road side was old construction. Lower appellate court placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., 2007 AIR(SC) 168 holding that residing in different portions of joint property does not amount to formal partition.