RAM KUMAR Vs. ROHTASH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Kumar - defendant No. 1 has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Suit was filed by Rohtash - respondent No. 1/plaintiff against appellant as defendant No. 1 and against proforma respondents No. 2 to 5 as proforma defendants No. 2 to 5. Defendants No. 1 to 4 had 1/4th share each in 135 kanals 11 marlas land in question. Similarly, defendants no. 1 to 4 and Kishan Lal - predecessor of defendant no. 5 had 1/5th share each in 22 kanals 04 marlas land in question. Pahlad - proforma defendant no. 3 suffered consent decree dated 22.07.1991 of his share in both chunks of land in favour of the plaintiff. Mutation on the basis of said decree was also sanctioned on 12.06.1994. Defendant no. 1 thereafter filed partition application dated 02.01.1995 against defendants no. 2 to 5, but without impleading respondent no. 1-plaintiff as party thereto. The suit land was partitioned by the Revenue Court. The plaintiff has challenged the said partition alleging that he was not made party to the partition proceedings and therefore, the partition effected without affording opportunity of hearing to plaintiff-respondent no. 1, who had already become co-sharer in the suit land, is null and void. The plaintiff sought declaration of his share in the suit land i.e. 1/4th share in 135 kanals 11 marlas land and 1/5th share in 22 kanals 04 marlas land.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and denied that plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/4th share and 1/5th share in the two chunks of land. It was pleaded that final partition has been effected and the same cannot be challenged in civil court. Various other pleas were also raised.