DHAN KAUR Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging judgment and decree dated 25-4-1980 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur, who has reversed the findings of trial Court recorded in its judgment and decree dated 18-12- 1976. Learned Addl. District Judge, has reversed the finding of the trial Court on the core issue by holding that partition in fact had taken place amongst the plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondents in respect of the land which has been owned by them as co-sharer. For the sake of clarity the parties are being referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in accordance with the original nomenclature given by the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs, namely, Nihal Singh and Gurmel Singh (now represented by their legal representatives) had filed a civil suit No. 211 on 19-10-1973, seeking a declaration to the effect that they were exclusive owners of the land measuring 242 kanal 5 marlas out of the total land measuring 540 kanals 13 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Dhindsa, on the basis of private partition. It was also claimed that Harbans Singh, defendant No. 13 son of Avtar Singh along with the plaintiffs is also an exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land. A further prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from getting the suit land repartitioned.

(3.) According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs along with defendant No. 13 and defendant Nos. 1 to 17 were the owners of the whole land measuring 540 kanal 13 malras. They are alleged to have effected a private partition and land measuring 242 kanal 5 marlas along with land measuring 13 kanal 4 marlas comprised in khewat No. 12 fell to their share and two others namely, Harbans Singh, defendant No. 13 and Ass Kaur, defendant No. 18. It has also been claimed that in pursuance to aforementioned private partition the parties have got exclusive possession of their respective shares and assumed rights as exclusive owners. Various instances of sale, mortgage and exchange etc. have been quoted to build up the case that those transfer deeds indicate that the plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos. 13 and 18 became exclusive owners of the land. Those instances have been given in the plaint and are alleged to have taken place after partition. Those instances are as under :-