RAN VIJAY SINGH Vs. JAI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2017 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 116-CA/13 of 2016 whereby he upheld the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan on 16.8.2016 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant to the mode of partition suggested by the Local Commissioner and at the same time passed a final decree for partition of the suit land in accordance with such mode.

(2.) The facts as are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that initially respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 82/1 of 2009 for passing preliminary decree of partition of the suit property comprising of Khata/Khatauni No. 78 min/118 min, Khasra Nos. 106, 107, 108, 110, 2339/114, 193 and 191 total measuring 1058-54 sq.mtrs. situated in Mohal Nahan (Mohalla Chakrera), Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Vide its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009, the learned trial Court passed preliminary decree for partition.

(3.) Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed application No. 88/6 of 2010 under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC for passing final decree. The appellant/defendant filed objections to the mode of partition suggested by the Local Commissioner alleging that the Local Commissioner did not carry out partition in accordance with law as he disturbed the possession of the appellant on the spot. It was submitted that the total area allotted to the appellant is 49.40 sq. mtrs., whereas the area allotted to the respondent/plaintiff is 55.48 sq.mtrs. Khasra No. 2339/114/1 which was allotted to the respondent/plaintiff was measuring 379.26 sq.mtrs. and in the same way Khasra No. 2339/114/2 measuring 378.74 sq.mtrs in which shops are allotted to the respondent/plaintiff illegally, whereas the appellant/defendant had constructed the shops after spending huge amount by taking loan from the bank. It was further asserted by the appellant that plaintiff is Government servant whereas he is without work.