ROSHAN LAL SOOD Vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the verdict, rendered on 2nd Nov., 2015, by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2003.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, accepted the report of the Local Commissioner concerned, where after, it in consonance therewith, rendered a final decree of partition by metes and bound, of, the hitherto undivided suit property. The defendant/appellant herein had relied upon Ex.DW1/A, exhibit whereof is a rent deed executed with respect to a commercial establishment, occurring, in a part of the hitherto undivided suit property, commercial establishment whereof, is, designated as shop No. 135 and is situated in Lower Bazar, Shimla, besides reliance is also placed, upon, certain rent receipts borne in Ext. DW1/B to Ex.DW1/G. The imminent purpose behind reliance being placed thereon, was to derive, legal capitalization, from, verdicts rendered by the Honourable Apex Court as also by the various High Courts in cases tiled Puran Chand(deceased) through LRs and others Vs. Kirpal Singh (deceased) and others, (2001)2 SCC 433, Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman, AIR 2002, SC 2562, T. Lakshmipathi and others Vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others, (2003) 5 SCC 150, India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (deceased) by LRs Savitri Agarwalla (Smt) and others, (2004) 3 SCC 178, Pramod Kumar Jaiswaland others Vs. Bibi Husn Bano and others, (2005) 5 SCC 492, Savitri Devi Vs. Santa and others, 1982 Sim.L.C. 135, Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Smt. Sayeedan, AIR 1984 Allahabad 140, Ishwar Dayal and others Vs. Ram Deo, 1985 (1) R.C.J. 619, Balak Ram Vs. Kedar Nath (deceased) through his L.Rs. Joginder Paul and others, 1995 (1) Sim.L.C. 191 and Hameeda Begum and another Vs. Champa Bai Jain and others, 2009 (2) RLR 518, (i) where-within, a trite legal expostulation, exists, of acquisition of partial proprietary rights, by the co-owner concerned, in the undivided suit property, not carrying, the force of hence termination(s) of hitherto tenancy(s) therein, also making its ensuals. The reliance by the appellant, upon, the afore referred verdicts, appears to be generated, for, frustrating the respondents/plaintiffs, to, seek dismemberment(s) by metes and bounds, of the commercial establishment concerned. However, the afore-stated endeavour, of, the defendant/appellant herein is in its entirety, misplaced, as a reading of the judgments, relied upon by him, for, making the aforesaid espousal, of, especially thereupon the establishment concerned, being unamenable vis-a-vis its dismemberment by metes and bounds, rather not, settling the aforesaid espousals therein.

(3.) Be that as it may, since reliance, upon, Ex.DW1/A by the appellant/defendant besides reliance placed by him, upon, certain rent receipts, appertaining to the commercial establishment concerned, hence was concluded by the learned Single Judge, to be carrying no evidentiary worth. Consequently, the defendant/appellant being aggrieved therefrom, hence, it becomes the bounden obligation, of this Court, to assess the merits, of his contention, whereby, he assails the findings recorded, by the learned Single Judge, of this Court qua sanctity being dis-imputable vis-a-vis all exhibits aforesaid.