JAWALA PARSHAD Vs. SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by plaintiff -Kashi Ram was partly decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2006. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said decree was accepted and accordingly, the suit was decreed as prayed for. This is how, defendant No.1 i.e. Jawala Parshad 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 plaintiff, he prayed for a decree for possession by way of partition of the properties described in para No.1 (A, B, C) of the plaint i.e. 1/3rd share in the property described in para No.1A of the plaint i.e. gair mumkin gait. And 1/4th share in the property described in para No.1B of the plaint i.e. shops. And 1/4th share in the property described in para No.1C of the plaint i.e. property within the abadi of the village. By way of consequential relief, a decree for injunction was also claimed, restraining defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner and also from raising any construction therein. It was averred that plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 were joint owners in possession of the property bearing khewat No.615, khatauni No.685, khasra No.198/2 (0 -8), situated in village Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari. Further, plaintiff and defendants were also owners in joint possession of a shop shown in dark colour in the site plan appended with the plaint, as the same was purchased vide sale deed dated 25.11.1957. Likewise, plaintiff and defendants were also joint owners in possession of the property that was bounded on the eastern side by Sehan Chowk and rasta, on the western side by property of the plaintiff and a rasta, on the northern side by a road and on the southern side by a street and houses of Malu and Udmi etc.

(3.) IN defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, by defendant No.1 that civil court had no jurisdiction to partition gair mumkin gait, comprised in khasra No.198/2(8 -8). Defendant No.1 claimed himself to be the exclusive owner in possession of the shop and the room constructed thereon. As the said shop was mutually partitioned about 37/38 years back and the plaintiff had no concern therewith. However, it was admitted that plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, had equal shares in the land bearing khasra No.198/2.