RAJINDER AND OTHERS Vs. SUKH PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1986, passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Gurgaon, accepting the appeal of respondent No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.1985, passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.

(2.) The plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit for possession by way of partition of the property, fully described in para 2 of the plaint, on the premise that Albad son of Agdi was a common ancestor of the parties. Smt. Chandri was the daughter of Rugh Nath son of Albad and being daughter was legal heir of Smt. Runia widow of Rugh Nath. After death of Smt. Runia in 1958, Chandri, her daughter and after death of Chandri in 1975, the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Chandri are joint owners of half share in the suit property as both the parties are the descendants of said Albad and, as such, the parties are joint owners in possession of the suit property as it has not been partitioned till date. It was further averred that Smt. Runia got half share in the suit property being the son's widow of said Albad and on her death in 1958, Smt. Chandri, her daughter inherited the suit property. It was accordingly prayed that suit for possession by partition of half share in the suit property be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1 was filed separately controverting the allegations contained in the plaint and entitlement of the plaintiffs to have any share in the suit property. It was denied that Albad had a son namely Rugh Nath, Rugh Nath ever had a widow by the name of Smt. Runia or Smt. Runia had a daughter named Smt. Chandri or the plaintiffs are children of said Smt. Chandri. It was also denied that widow of Rugh Nath had ever inherited property of Albad or she died in the year 1958. All other material averments of the plaint were denied with prayer for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed replication reiterating their stand taken up in the plaint while denying claim of the defendants.