CHANDGI RAM Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the plaintiff, Chandgi Ram, against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby a suit for partition of one house and one plot situated at Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak (now District Jhajjar) was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the parties are decendants of common ancestor, Jamna Dass and they had joint property i.e. one house as shown in the site plan Ex. P3 and one plot as shown in site plan Ex.P4. The appellant, Chandgi Ram, is alleged to have 1/3rd share in the abovesaid property and was in possession of the portion of the property. Further averred that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had got 1/3rd share while respondent No. 5, Sukhi Ram, had got the remaining 1/3rd share. Since, the respondents had refused to give possession of 1/3rd share belonging to the appellant after partition, so he filed this suit for possession of 1/3rd share on 20.5.1971. Respondent No. 5, Sukhi Ram, filed written statement supporting the claim of the appellant. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit. They denied the allegations of the appellant (plaintiff) and stated that the appellant and respondent No. 5 had got no concern with the property in dispute and on the other hand, they were exclusive owners in possession of the same. They also denied that the property in dispute was their joint property.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the file, the Sub Judge 1st Class, Rohtak, vide his judgement dated 17.1.1973, dismissed the suit of the appellant for possession by partition of 1/3rd share by holding under Issue No. 1 that the appellant had failed to prove that the property in dispute was their joint property and as such was not entitled to partition. However, under Issue No. 2, it was held that the appellant was in possession of a portion of the house which he wanted to get and as such decided the issue in favour of the appellant. Issue No. 3 was held as redundant while Issue No. 4 was not pressed during arguments. Under Issue No. 5, it was held that no case was made out for special costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide his judgment dated 11.9.1980.