RASHPAL KAUR BHULLAR Vs. BACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1/appellant has filed the present second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below whereby the suit for separate possession by partition and permanent injunction filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was partly decreed by passing a preliminary decree under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC by the trial court and the appeal filed by defendant No. 1/appellant was dismissed by the appellate court.

(2.) Facts necessary for the decision of the present second appeal are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the suit with the allegations that he was owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share of the land measuring 5K-5M. It was further alleged that defendants 1 to 5 were also co-owners in the suit property which was joint and un-partitioned. It was further alleged that some rooms were also constructed therein and that defendants 1 to 5 have been threatening to alienate/dispose of the property in dispute without any partition and make construction on the same, while defendant No. 6 had been threatening to auction the specific portion of the suit property. It was also alleged that Manjit Kaur, mother of defendants 1 to 4 had mortgaged 1/2 share out of khasra No. 31/36, 5K-5M with defendant No. 6-Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala. In this background plaintiff filed the suit for separate possession in respect of the suit property; with further relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 5 from alienating and disposing off the suit property and restraining them from raising any construction over the same.

(3.) Upon notice defendants filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 in her written statement alleged that the property in dispute is joint ownership of all the co-sharers. It was denied that the plaintiff was owner to the extent of 1/4th share. The defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement on the same lines.