KASTURI LAL Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is aggrieved by the findings recorded by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar (referred to hereinafter as 'the first appellate Court') in their respective judgments dated 1.3.2006 and 5.6.2007 rendered in the suit and the appeal filed by him. In the suit filed by him, the plaintiff had sought a decree for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property. It was pleaded that he along with the defendants was a member of Joint Hindu Family and that previously, Ram Lal, his father, was owner in possession of the house in question; that after the death of Ram Lal, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 inherited l/5th share each, whereas defendant Nos. 4 to 6 inherited it to the extent of 1/5 share in equal shares; that defendant Nos. 4 and 1 in collusion with each other had not been allowing the plaintiff to derive full benefit of his l/5th share in the house in question; that the defendants are having influence with the local police and in connivance with each other, they had obtained his signatures on blank papers which were, in all probabilities, was likely to be misused.

(2.) Defendant No. 1-Smt. Chanan Devi is the mother, whereas defendant No. 2- Smt. Kaushlaya Devi and defendant No. 4-Smt. Swarn Rani are sisters of the plaintiff. Upon notice, they had appeared and filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant No. 4-Smt.Sobha Rani is the widow and defendant Nos. 5 & 6 are minor sons of Madan Lal, brother of the plaintiff. A joint written statement was filed by them contesting the suit and denying any claim of the plaintiff over the house in question. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not related to them in any manner, but they admitted that the suit property belonged to Ram Lal, that after the death of Ram Lal, the suit * property was inherited by defendant No. 1 to the extent of 1/2 share, whereas the remaining 1/2 share was inherited by defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in equal shares; that when the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had tried to obtain the property by force, as a -result of which the police & respectables were involved and a compromise was effected in which 1/2 share of defendant Nos. 4 to 6 was admitted and defendant No. 1 had also agreed to sell her share to them for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-.