LAL CHAND Vs. VARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS No. 1 and 2 have filed the instant second appeal after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) SUIT was filed by Parkash Chand (since deceased and represented by respondents no.1 to 7) against appellants and Rekha Rani (respondent no.8/defendant no.3) alleging that Harbans Lal - father of the original plaintiff and Amar Nath - father of appellant-defendant no.1 Lal Chand were brothers. They were joint owners of the total property depicted in the site plan. Without partitioning it, they made mutual arrangement for separate possession and accordingly, ownership continued to be joint and no partition has taken place by metes and bounds. However, Harbans Lal came in possession of the portion depicted in red colour in site plan annexed with the plaint, whereas Amar Nath came in possession of green coloured portion. Chaubara on first floor over Deori came to exclusive possession of Harbans Lal. Accordingly, plaintiff came in possession of the portion, which was in possession of his father Harbans Lal, whereas defendant no.1 along with other heirs came in possession of the portion, which was in possession of his father Amar Nath. However, defendant no.2 Jagdish Ram, whose house adjoins the aforesaid house on northern side, claims to have purchased the green coloured portion from legal heirs of Amar Nath and on this basis, defendant no.2 threatened to demolish the property including Deori on the ground floor, over which Chaubara on first floor is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property as shown in red colour in the site plan and restraining the defendants from demolishing any part of the property including Deori on ground floor, which is in possession of the defendants.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendants no.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 2 have preferred the instant second appeal.