DHARAM CHAND Vs. PRITAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the portion of the house in dispute has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) House No. S-K/104 was an evacuee property. According to the plaintiff-appellant he and the defendant had jointly applied to the Ministry of Rehabilitation for the allotment of his house. The plaintiff contributed to the extent of 1/3rd share and the remaining 2/3rd share was contributed by the defendant. However, the conveyance deed was issued in the name of the defendant alone and it was got registered on 24th April, 1970. The plaintiff was described as an associate in the sale-deed. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that the parties by their mutual consent had divided the property amongst themselves in the year 1950 and since then they were in possession of their separate portions. According to the plaintiff under the guise of the sale-deed the defendant started casting cloud over his title and hence the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the portion of the disputed house.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and took the plea that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. There had been no partition of the property as alleged and so the suit is misconceived. The allegations that the plaintiff and the defendant had jointly applied for the allotment of the house was controverted. It was asserted that the conveyance deed has been issued in favour of the defendant by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the defendant is in possession of the property in his favour. The trial Court found that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the property shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint and the plaintiff has thus no locus standi to file the suit. It was further found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any partition of the house between the parties as alleged. As a result of these findings the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Sub-Judge with (Enhanced Appellate Powers) affirmed these findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal in this Court.