AJIT KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendant No.1 is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit of plaintiff-respondent No.1 has partly been decreed to the effect that plaintiff was declared as a co-sharer in joint possession to the extent of his share in the property as fully detailed in Head Note A of the plaint and further as exclusive title holder of perpetual leasehold rights qua the property as described in Head Note B of the plaint. Relief of permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiff qua the property comprised in Head Note A of the plaint was declined, for, being owner in joint possession over the property in dispute alongwith defendants.

(2.) The suit at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was filed claiming co-ownership in joint possession over the property in dispute as referred to above (hereinafter called "suit property") on the premise that Ram Lal son of Sunder Dass, father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2 and 4 and husband of defendant No.3 was owner of the property and died on 08.08.2000. During his life time, executed a registered Will dated 13.05.1998 in favour of plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 4, whereby, the suit property mentioned in Head Note A of the plaint were given jointly to the plaintiff and defendants and property mentioned in Head Note B of the plaint was given to the plaintiff exclusively.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1-Ajit Kumar. It was stated that it was joint Hindu property and there was dispute only with regard to the property described in Head Note B of the plaint between plaintiff and defendant No.1 situated at New Delhi. It was denied that Ram Lal was not exclusive owner in possession of the property mentioned at Head Note B of the plaint, rather the same was Hindu Undivided Family Property at the hands of Ram Lal, during his life time effected an oral settlement to the extent of 1/6th share each. Defendants No.2 to 4 also filed separate written statement. The factum of Will was not denied, for, Ram Lal bequeathed the property as mentioned in the Head Note A.