GANGA DEVI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are being decided by a common judgement since similar questions of facts and law are involved as they arise out of the same judgement.

(2.) THE appellants here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs, directly themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, filed a suit in the learned trial Court claiming that they were owners in possession of the agricultural land alongwith Abadi Deh land situate in village Samti, Hadbast No.616, Pargana Quintan-1, Tehsil and District Solan. According to the plaintiffs, their common predecessor-in-interest was Ram Dia. He was succeeded by three sons Prem Singh, Daulia and Shankar, who each had 1/3rd share in the land. Share of Prem Singh devolved upon his son Hari Singh and after his death devolved upon Narayan Singh and Kishan Singh, who became owners of 1/6th share each. 1/3rd share of Daulia devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. Krishan Lal, Bhagwan Dassi THErefore, each of them had 1/9th and Krishna. share in their land. Krishan Lal sold his entire share to Kumari Kavita and plaintiffs No. 4 and 5 by a registered sale deed and each of them became owners in possession of 1/18th share each. 1/3rd share held by Shankar Dass S/o Ram Dia devolved upon his four heirs i.e. Man Singh, Hardev, Ganga Devi and Vidya. Hardev is alleged to have pre- deceased Smt. Vidya and therefore, his 1/12th share was inherited by her. Thus Man Singh was owner of 1/12th share, Vidya plaintiff No.1 had 1/5th share and plaintiff No.2 Ganga Devi had 1/12th share. Man Singh sold his 1/12th share to Bala Ram. It was alleged that the land and structures of the Abadi Deh was joint and possessed by all the parties except by defendant No.6, who had sold his share to plaintiff No.6 and therefore, on this basis the plaintiffs claimed partition of the land. THE learned trial Court passed a preliminary decree for separate possession after determining the shares of the parties.

(3.) AS per the pleadings of the parties, the plaintiffs have 17/36th shares i.e. almost half share in the Abadi Deh. They also claimed that they are co-owners of the structure but the evidence led before the Courts below suggest that they have nothing to do with the structure raised on the Abadi Deh. The learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to show what was the extent of the vacant land and therefore, the plaintiffs could not claim partition.