CHATTAR SINGH Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal of the plaintiff in a suit instituted by him on 21.12.1983, seeking possession of the suit property after its partition. The suit having been dismissed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Rohtak, on 11.09.1986, and the first appeal against that judgment and decree also having been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Rohtak, vide his judgment and decree dated 14.01.1988, the present second appeal came to be instituted.

(2.) The facts of the case are being taken from the judgments of the learned Courts below, a perusal of which reveals that as per the appellants' plaint, he and the defendant are brothers, who owned and possessed various immovable property, including a double storeyed house (Haveli), a parlour (described in the judgment of the learned Sub Judge as a Darwaja), some plots and agricultural land.

(3.) It was further stated that the agricultural land had been partitioned since long but the rest of the property, the full details of which were given in paragraph 2 of the plaint, continued to be jointly held. However, for the sake of convenience, the plaintiff had started using the Darwaja described in para no.2 (b) of the plaint, and the defendant had started using the rest of the house. Similarly, a plot described in paragraph 2 (b) (i) of the plaint was also stated to be possessed by the plaintiff, whereas the plot mentioned in paragraph no.2 (d) was jointly possessed by the parties. It was further contended that a settlement had been arrived at on 05.05.1957 between the parties, qua all the properties detailed in paragraph no.2 of the plaint. However, the settlement was ignored and was subsequently cancelled and in proceedings under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the parties had again arrived at a settlement, which was reflected in the orders of the Director, Consolidation, and the Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, dated 26.05.1975 and 05.01.1976 respectively. The parties had thereby been held to be joint owners of plots no.226 and 227, detailed in paragraphs no. 2-c and 2-d of the plaint.