BHAGAT RAM Vs. PYARE LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for separate possession by way of partition was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant herein filed the instant suit making the averments that previously Jai Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit property. The said Jai Ram died intestate leaving behind his three sons plaintiff, defendant No.1 and one Mehar Chand as his LRs. During the life-time of Jai Ram, the appellant was residing in the portion of the house which has been shown in green colour in the site-plan attached with the plaint and respondent/defendant No.1 was residing in the portion shown in blue colour whereas Mehar Chand was residing in the portion shown in orange colour. The suit property was not partitioned by metes and bound and Mehar Chand without getting the land partitioned sold the suit land as shown in orange colour in the site plan to Sh. Subhash Kumar son of Lal Chand, vide sale deed dated 2.6.2005, who has further alienated the same to respondents No.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 24.3.2006. It is the case of the appellant that he is entitled to 3/5th share of the suit property which is not being given to him by the defendants and thus the necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections further submitting that Jai Ram had four sons, one wife and one daughter and all of them have not been impleaded as party to the suit. It was further stated that the site plan of the plaintiff was not correct. It was further denied that Mehar Chand had sold his share in the suit property. Further submission was made that the suit property has already been partitioned amongst the co-sharers about 40-42 years ago and all the co-sharers as per said partition had raised construction in the form of residential houses over specific portion of the suit property which had come in their share of the suit property. It was further stated that the matter was compromised between the parties vide compromise deed dated 20.5.2005. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit for partition. Defendants No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.12.2007.