GOBIND RAM Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly summed up, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Gobind Ram aged about 68 years son of Smt. Durgi Devi wife of Sh. Sant Lai, resident of Gali Ghosian, Pana Narsan, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani had brought a suit against the defendants Shanti Devi and Indro Devi, both daughters of Kishori, resident of Bhiwani, seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating l/3rd portion of the house in question shown in red colourmarked with letters ABCD forming part of house marked by letters AGFH bearing MC Unit No.C-333 situated at Gali Ghosian, Pana Narshan, Halu Bazar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiff house in dispute shown with letters AGFH in the site plan annexed with the plaint was owned and possessed by three owners namely S/Sh.Munna Lai, Kishori Lal and Baijnath Kedia; all three of them had mutually partitioned the house, resultantly portion shown by letters ABCD fell to the share of Baijnath Kedia, whereas portion shown by letters BCEH fell to the share of Kishori Lal and portion shown shown by letters DGFE fell to the share of Munna Lai; all the three portions have different entrances, though in the municipal record the entire house has been shown by one Municipal unit No.C-333; Baijnath Kedia had executed a Will in the year 1938 bequeathing his entire estate including the disputed house in favour of Durgi Devi; after death of Baijnath Kedia, Durgi Devi inherited the house/portion; Durgi Devi had three sons i.e. plaintiff Gobind Ram, Shyam Lal and Piare Lai; Gobind Ram is looking after the portion of the house in question for himself and his brothers; all three of them were exclusive owners in possession of the portion of the house shown in red colour marked with letters ABCD after death of Durgi Devi for last 12 years; Kishori Lal had two daughters, namely, Shanti Devi and Indro Devi, who are defendants in the suit; that after death of Kishori Lai,his two daughters aforesaid became owners in possession of the portion of the house depicted with letters BCEH; the defendants taking advantage of the fact that the entire house has been allotted one municipal No.C-333 intended to sell the entire house including the portion of the plaintiff, not listening to request of the plaintiff to desist from doing so, as such the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

(3.) On being put to notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections contending that the plaintiff did not have any locus standi to bring the suit; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit; that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and was liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A CPC; that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit. On merits, the defendants denied the assertions in the plaint contending that Baijnath Kedia had no concern with the house in dispute and the plaintiff was not in possession of any part thereof; that in the municipal record, the house was shown in the name of Shanti Devi - defendant No.l; that defendant No.2 - Indro Devi has already given her share to defendant No.l - Shanti Devi; that the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest had/has no concern with the house in question; similarly Baijnath Kedia has nothing to do with such house, as such there was no question of his executing any Willin favour of Durgi Devi in the year 1938; as a matter of fact the suit property was owned and possessed by one Sanwal Ram, who was having two sons, namely, Munna Lal and Kishori Lai; after death of Sanwal Ram, the suit property devolved upon Munna Lal and Kishori Lai; Munna Lal has given his share to Kishori Lai; after the death of Kishori Lai, the suit property devolved upon the defendants. Refuting the remaining assertions in the plaint, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.