OMPRAKASH Vs. RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' appeal against judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 31A/95 dismissing thereby the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants for restoration of possession.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

(3.) Original defendant submitted his written statement refuting thereby the claim of the plaintiff. He stated that the house bearing Municipal No. 38/293(A) is not owned by the plaintiff. He further stated that the property bearing Municipal No. 38/293 belongs to temple Shri Radhakrishna. Plaintiff fraudulently got his name entered in the municipal record by providing municipal number 38/293(A) to the alleged portion whereas he did not have any personal house. It is further stated that defendant's father, namely, Kannomal and plaintiff's father, namely, Gullimal were real brothers. They lived jointly as members of the joint family and were running joint family business. All the houses were purchased during this period by the HUF. This continued up to the year 1956. A partition took place in respect of movable property between plaintiff and defendant on 28.05.56 which was reduced into writing. Immovable property was not partitioned at all at that time.