MD. MUMTAZ Vs. MUSTAQUE AHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and preliminary decree dtd. 31/3/2016 and 8/4/2016 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rourkela in R.F.A. No.09 of 2015. The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.233 of 2012 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela arraigning the Respondent as the Defendant. The suit is for partition of the suit property in allotting equal share to the Respondent (Plaintiff) and the Appellant (Defendant). The suit having been preliminarily decreed on contest the Appellant (Defendant) being aggrieved had carried Appeal under Sec. -96 of the Code, which has also been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of Appellant who has remained as the unsuccessful Defendant in both the Courts below having failed to non-suit the Respondent (Plaintiff).

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that he and the Defendant purchased the suit land on 30/10/2001 by contributing equal amount and accordingly, the record of right was prepared jointly in their names. It was having the status as Ghara and four rooms with two latrines and two bedrooms with RCC roofs were standing over the same. The Defendant constructed the house by spending equal amount of money. The Plaintiff was using one room out of four rooms. In the year 2012, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant for partition of the property to have half share over the same so as to make his separate ROR. The Defendant did not come forward to do so and created other problems for Plaintiff. So, the Plaintiff filed suit for partition.