FERAN SINGH Vs. DHANIRAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-06-2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2006 by the First Additional District Judge (NDPS), Gwalior, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-12-2005 passed in Civil Suit No.64-A/2003 by the Seventh Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior, whereby the suit of the plaintiffappellant was dismissed.

(2.) Short facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of disputed room on the ground that the same is situated in Mahalgaon, Khedapati Colony near Baldev Apartment bearing House No.1145 in the periphery of Ward No.31 of the Municipal Corporation. It is pleaded by him that he is the owner of the house. Disputed room has been shown with red line in the map annexed with the plaint with boundaries as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint itself. The house belonged to Madho Singh, father of plaintiff and defendant No.1-Dhaniram. After death of Madho Singh, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and one Ramcharan became joint owners of the property. Subsequently, mutual partition took place amongst the three brothers. Pursuant to said partition, the area ad-measuring 11 1/2 ft. x 70 ft. fell in the share of each of the three brothers. It is averred that the disputed room which was the subject matter of the suit came in the share of the plaintiff in which the defendants were residing. Being his brothers, defendants assured that they will give possession of the room in question to the plaintiff after sometime. When after lapse of sometime the possession of the room was not handed over to the plaintiff, the defendants were served with a registered notice through counsel and thereafter the suit came to be filed in the court by him.

(3.) The defendants by filing joint written statements, denied the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is pleaded by them that the plaintiff is not the son of deceased Madho Singh and Madho Singh left behind him only two sons, namely, Dhaniram (defendant No.1) and Ramcharan. It is admitted by the defendants that they are residing in the disputed room but the partition between them and the plaintiff was denied. Accordingly, it is urged for dismissal of the suit.