JAGDISH CHAND GUPTA Vs. RAJINDER PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-5-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad allowing the application of defendant-respondent No. 1 filed under Ss. 151, 152, 153 and 153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') correcting the judgment and decree dated 15-5-1999.

(2.) The facts of the case unfolded in this petition are that the plaintiff-petitioners and defendant-respondent No. 1 are real brothers whereas defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 are their real sisters. They constituted a Joint Hindu Family with their father late Dr. Sohan Lal as Karta. The pedigree table of the family is as follows :

(3.) Plaintiff-petitioner No. 1 Jagdish Chand filed a Civil Suit No. 6 on 5-1-1993 for claiming 1/3rd share in the co-parcenary property consisting of a house and a plot situated in Ballabgarh and 1/6th share in the shop situated in main bazar Ballabgarh because the other half of the said shop was owned and possessed jointly by Ram Nath son of Hukam Chand cousin brother of plaintiff-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant-respondents No. 1 to 5. Plaintiff-petitioner No. 1 specifically pleaded in the suit that his sisters, namely, Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Usha Devi, Smt. Sarla Devi and Madhu Bala defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 had no share in the co-parcenary properties as they had already taken more than their shares at the time of their marriages. Defendant-respondent No. 1 alone contested the suit and defendant-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 did not appear despite service and, therefore, were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 9-11-1996 passed by the trial Court. Defendant-respondent No. 1 in his written statement took the stand that after the death of his father Dr. Sohan Lal suit property continued to be joint between the plaintiff-petitioner No. 1, defendant-respondent No. 1 and defendant-petitioner No. 2 but the same was divided by them in the year 1972 on the basis of an oral partition. Accordingly (1) The house was partitioned between the plaintiff-petitioner No. 1, defendant-respodnent No. 1 and defendant-petitioner No. 2 in equal shares; (ii) The plot was divided between the plaintiff-petitioner No. 1, defendant-respondent No. 1 and defendant-petitioner No. 2 in equal shares; and (iii) The whole of entire half share in the shop situated in main bazar Ballabgarh was given to defendant-respondent No. 1 in lieu of expenses incurred by him on the marriages of defendant-respondents Nos. 2 to 5. It was pleaded by defendant-respondent No. 1 that defendant-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were not necessary parties as the oral partition have already been effected between the plaintiff-petitioner No. 1, defendant-respondent No. 1 and defendant-petitioner No. 2. On that basis, prayer for the dismissal of the suit was made.