LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-124

LACHHI RAM Vs. SUKHMAL CHAND

Decided On October 26, 2010
LACHHI RAM Appellant
V/S
Sukhmal Chand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 20.1.1996, permitting the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit in appeal subject to payment of Rs. 1000/ - as costs.

(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for separate possession by partition of the immovable property as detailed in the plaint. It is alleged that one Deep Chand, father of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and predecessor-in-interest of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, were owners of the ancestral property along with others. After the death of Shri Deep Chand, the joint property was partitioned vide partition deed dated 7.6.1946 between the Plaintiff, his uncle Jai Prakash and his brothers. Defendant No. 1-Mehar Chand is the eldest brother of the Plaintiff, whereas Defendant No. 2 is another elder brother of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of his another brother Tara Chand (pre-deceased). The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are thus, co-sharers and joint owners of the suit property having 1/4th share. The Plaintiff sought partition of the property for the beneficial use of the property by the Plaintiff.

(3.) In the written statement, Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the property stands already partitioned. Defendant No. 2 got his share vide agreement dated 2.8.1968, whereas Tara Chand, father of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 got his share vide agreement dated 8.9.1965. The Plaintiff has also got his share through agreement dated 11.11.1971. In a separate written statement, Defendant No. 2 alleged that shop No. 516 was his self acquired property and that Defendant No. 1 be directed to compensate him and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with regard to the sale consideration of the two shops i.e. Shop Nos. 65 and 76. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 submitted joint written statement dated 7.12.1984 admitting the claim of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 5 is the purchaser from Defendant No. 1 through sale deed dated 14.10.1977, whereas Defendant No. 6 has allegedly purchased shop vide sale deed dated 20.2.1978 from Defendant No. 1.