ARJAN SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which appeal filed by the respondents herein was accepted and the case was remanded to lower court for fresh decision on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in accordance with law.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for partition of joint property i.e. House No. 4940/37 measuring 75.5 square yards in which the plaintiff had 2/3rd share. He also claimed 2/3rd share in the amount lying in the Central Bank which was deposited by Harnam Singh. It was claimed that the plaintiff and Harnam Singh were collateral. Harnam Singh had died issueless. Hira Singh had two sons namely Jagat Singh and Ganga Singh. Ganga Singh had two sons namely Arjan Singh and Surjit Singh while Jagat Singh left behind plaintiff No. 2 Ram Singh as his son. It was claimed that Harnam Singh was living separately in the house in dispute who died on 29.10.1984 without any issue while the plaintiffs are the residents of Bihar. Wife of Harnam Singh had died before the death of Harnam Singh and thus, the property in dispute was inherited by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1, in equal shares.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1, while defendants No. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex parte. It was alleged that the suit was not maintainable in the present form as the plaintiffs were not in possession of constructed portion of the house property. It was claimed that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as the property has already been sold by defendant No. 1 being owner on the basis of Will. It was also claimed that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and that it was bad for misjoinder of parties and cause of action. It was claimed that the plaintiffs never served Harnam Singh during his life time. It was also claimed that Harnam Singh executed a registered Will in favour of defendant No. 1 which was valid one and that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 was valid and legal. Other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied. After filing the replication, the following issues were framed :-