MINT LAL Vs. SATYA NARAIN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010. Appeal preferred against the said decree, was accepted and, accordingly, the suit was decreed by the Ist Appellate Court, on 26.03.2013. This is how, defendant No.1 is before this Court, in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs (Satya Narayan and others) they prayed for possession by way of partition of the house mentioned in para-2 of the plaint and prayed that 1/4th share of the plaintiffs be separated. It was averred that Banwari Lal son of Ram Saran was the owner in possession of the house in question, who died issueless in the year 1977. Chandru, Basesar, Har Kishor and Janki, the other heirs of Ram Saran, died subsequently. Plaintiffs and defendants happened to be their heirs. Therefore, post death of Banwari Lal, plaintiffs, who are sons of Har Kishor, inherited 1/4th share in his estate i.e. the house in question. Likewise, defendants No.1 and 2, who happened to be sons of Chandru, also inherited 1/4th share. Defendants No.3 to 7 (son and daughters of Basesar) and 8 to 11 (son and daughters of Janki) also inherited 1/4th share each in the estate of Banwari Lal. It was maintained that Ramphal son of Mint Lal filed Suit No.186/1 of 1986 claiming himself to be the adopted son of Banwari Lal and also propounded a Will, allegedly executed by him. Though, the said suit was instituted only qua the agricultural land but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1990. As plaintiffs and defendants were parties to the said decree, findings recorded therein would operate as res-judicata in the present suit. Since, plaintiffs were unable to use and enjoy the suit property to their satisfaction, thus, the suit, qua their 1/4th share, for possession by partition.

(3.) In defence, defendant No.1 maintained that Banwari Lal was, in fact, owner of three houses. He had divided his three houses during his life time. He had given one house to plaintiffs, second house to the father of defendants No.3 to 7 and third house to father of defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore, plaintiffs had no share in the suit property. In the separate written statement filed by defendants No.2 to 7, they set up the same pleas as were taken by defendant No.1.