RAJESHWARI Vs. BALCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Balchand Jain for declaration of title, partition and consequential relief to the extent of 1/3rd share of the disputed house. Another 1/3rd share was declared to be in ownership of respondent No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Jain. Respondent No. 3 who was also one of the defendants before the trial Court was declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share with respect to the disputed house and plot in question. The present defendants-appellants are wife and sons of respondent No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Jain who has been declared owner of 1/3rd share by the trial Court.

(2.) The factual matrix indicates that the plaintiff filed a suit against two of his sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar, and also Smt. Rajeshwari wife of Rajendra Kumar and Ritesh Kumar and Tarun Kumar both sons of Rajendra Kumar, alleging that plaintiff Balchand and two of his sons Rajendra and Devendra had purchased a dilapidated house situated at Gopalganj, Brindavan Ward, Sagar for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- by virtue of sale deed dated 23-6-1979. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the said house jointly and had constructed a four storied house. They were continuing in joint possession and all of them were residing along with their families in the house in question. The names of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Smt. Rajeshwari and Ritesh Kumar were nominally mentioned in the sale deed dated 23-6-1979 but they had not spent any money in the purchase of the said house whereas husband of defendant No. 3 Rajeshwari and father of defendant Ritesh Kumar, namely, Rajendra Kumar was joint owner with the plaintiff. The house was having 24 rooms and there were several tenants occupying the house. In the record of Municipal Corporation, Sagar names of defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were also wrongly shown as owners. The defendant No. 1 used to collect rent from the tenants and when the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 1 the accounts of the rent, their relations became strained and the defendant No. 1 thereatened the plaintiff with dispossession.

(3.) It was further alleged that in the year 1987 one plot was purchased at village Karila by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 from one Rameshchand son of Guljharilal Jain vide registered sale deed executed for a sum of Rs. 18,000/-. In the said sale deed also the name of defendant No. 5 was mentioned out of love and affection whereas it was also joint property of plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant No. 5, Tarun Kumar, had not spent any money in the said purchase and the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 i.e. father of Tarun Kumar, and defendant No. 2 Devendra Kumar, were having one-third share each in the said plot. It is pleaded that the plot and the house were jointly held by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and there was no partition between the parties. It was further alleged that Rajendra Kumar defendant No. 1 being eldest son of the plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the family and taking advantage of the same he had wrongfully mentioned the names of his wife and sons in the sale deeds and wrong representation was made that plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were shown as purchasers. Dispute had arisen between the brothers and they had started living separately. When the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 has committed wrong by mentioning the name of his son in the sale deed of plot, notice dated 14-8-95 was served through counsel which was replied by the defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 vide reply dated 28-2-1995. They denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration that defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have no share in House No. 51 to 54/1 situated at Gopalganj, Sagar and that their names were mentioned nominally in the sale deed dated 23-6-1979 with respect to the house, and in the sale deed executed in the year 1987 with respect to the plot at Karila, the name of defendant No. 5 was wrongly mentioned. It was further prayed that a decree for partition of the suit property among the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be passed. The accounts of rent were also sought from defendant No. 1 and the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff on such accounting was also claimed.