BIRBAL Vs. NAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Even though no one appeared on behalf of other respondents in spite of sufficient service, however, on the date when the arguments were heard, learned Counsel for respondent No. l stated that interest of respondent No. 2 and other respondents was exactly the same.

(2.) THIS is plaintiff's writ petition, who has filed O. S. No. 408 of 1985 against the respondents. The dispute in the suit relates to a house bearing No. 372. Relief claimed in the plaint is for partition and separate possession of 12/36th share of the plaintiff in the said house. However, in para 13 of the plaint it was stated that plaintiff's father had purchased adjoining houses bearing Nos. 373 and 374 through registered sale deed dated 3. 3. 1994 from one Thakur. In para 14 it was stated that apart from the house in dispute i. e. House No. 372, other joint properties, which were in the nature of agricultural lands, had been divided between the parties during consolidation. Para 13 of the plaint was replied in para 13 of the written statement. The reply was of denial. It was stated that the executant of the alleged sale deed had no right to transfer house Nos. 373 and 374 and the sale deed was a forged document having no adverse effect upon the rights of the answering defendants. However, it was not stated in the original written statement that defendants were claiming any right in the said houses.

(3.) IN any view of the matter the assertion that the two houses other than the house in dispute were purchased by the plaintiff's father was redundant having no bearing on the relief claimed in the plaint.