PARBODH CHAND KAPOOR Vs. VIJAY KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal filed by defendant No.1-appellant (herein referred as 'the defendant') is against the judgment dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala, whereby the suit for partition was decreed.

(2.) THE case has chequered history. Puran Chand Kapoor a resident of Ambala died leaving behind four sons namely Vijay Kapoor, Parbodh Chand Kapoor, Parkash Chand Kapoor and Prem Chand Kapoor, and three daughters namely Urmila, Bimla, Sudarshan Tara and wife Suhag Rani Kapoor.

(3.) IN their written statement, Parbodh Chander Kapoor and the performa respondent No. 6 (herein referred as the defendant No. 1) denied the allegations while raising several preliminary and technical objections viz: regarding maintainability; suit being the result of collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2; prior partition on the basis of family settlement; want of proper Court fee; and concealment of material facts. While admitting the relationship between the parties, it was disclosed that after the family settlement between the parties including the husband of the plaintiff No. 3 and plaintiffs No. 4 to 6 and Suhag Rani had relinquished their shares in the property and the same fell to the share of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 to the extent of = share each. The husband of the plaintiff No. 3 was settled at Madras with the funds of his share. Similarly, the defendant No. 2 had also purchased a plot at Jodhpur, out of the share money with respect to the share of the house in dispute. Thus, the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and the defendant No. 2 had left with no share in the suit property. Now plaintiff No. 1 has joined hands with the other plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2, who have also colluded with each other to the detriment of the defendant No. 1. As per understanding given by way of oral family settlement, the plaintiff No. 1 had been looking after the complete requirement of their mother Suhag Rani Kapoor, who died in January, 1999, consequently, no dispute is left between the parties. Eventually, it was pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No. 1 are in possession of = share each in the house in dispute and the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 have ceased to have any share in view of their categorical relinquishment. Thus, the suit was required to be dismissed.