OM PRAKASH VERMA Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree dated 20.2.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhadohi in Appeal No. 44 of 1997 arising out of decree dated 29.5.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge, Gyanpur in Suit No. 89 of 1991. The brief facts which give rise to this case are that the property which is in shape of a house, initially belong to one Garib. He had one daughter namely Smt. Saryoo Devi who was married to Baijnath. Garib executed a gift deed in favour of Smt. Saryoo Devi and Baijnath in respect of house in question giving half share to each. The possession was also handed over to them.

(2.) Sri Raj Narain and Vishwanath were tenants in a portion of the house. Lateron on 23.2.1970 Saryoo Devi who had half share in the house in question sold the same in favour of Raj Narain and Bechai. Admittedly, Raj Narain and others were not the family members of Smt. Saryoo Devi and Baijnath, they were strangers. Raj Narain and Bechai filed a suit for partition of the house and claimed half share and claimed that their share may be partitioned and they may be given possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by Baijnath inter alia on the ground that in view of section 4 of the Partition Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled for partition as they were not member of the undivided family and he is not entitled to buy the share sold by Smt. Saryoo Devi in favour of Raj Narain and Bechai.