LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-92

BANSI LAL Vs. SMT. SHAFIQUN

Decided On May 13, 1985
BANSI LAL Appellant
V/S
Smt. Shafiqun Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit for possession over the disputed property and for damages at Rs. 10/- per month. According to the plaintiff the entire house including the portion in suit originally belonged to Ibrahim and Sabir, who were real brothers, and on 18-1-1965 there was a partition between them and according to such partition the disputed portion was allotted to Sabir towards his share, and thereafter Sabir and Ibrahim continued in exclusive possession and occupation of their respective portion. The plaintiff is a transferee from Sabir under a sale deed dt. 28-10-1965. It was, further, alleged that on 7-11-1965 defendant 1 secretly demolished the partition wall between the two portions of the entire house and illegally and forcibly took possession over the disputed property. Defendants 2 to 8 being the sons and daughters of defendant No. 1 and defendant 9 being the vendor of defendant 1 were also impleaded.

(2.) The contesting defendants, inter alia, pleaded that one Najjan was the initial owner of the entire house. He had four sons, Babbu, Nabban, Ibrahim and Abrar and executed a sale deed in respect of ¼th share of his house in favour of his aforesaid four sons.

(3.) Thereafter he executed another sale deed with respect to 3 1/2 Anna share in the entire house in favour of Smt. Amna, wife of Sabir. He also made an oral gift with regard to another 3 1/2 Anna Share in respect of Smt. Akhtari, wife of Abrar alias Sabir, According to the defendant only three sons namely, Babbu, Ibrahim and Abrar alias Sabir survived Najjan and entered into possession of the house. Babbu later migrated to Pakistan in 1949 and his share vested in the custodian and the Custodian General U.P property is a necessary party. The alleged partition between Ibrahim and Sabir was denied and it was maintained that the property remained in joint possession of co-sharers and neither Sabir, nor the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed portion of the house exclusively.