REETA DEVI Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed by the aggrieved defendants, against, concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiffs suit for possession, through, partition of the suit land, comprised in khevat No. 31/1 khatauni No. 34/1, Khasra No. 81, measuring 52 sq yards 4 sq feet, and, also for hence rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, qua therewith, hence stood decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to be the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession by way of partition and for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming themselves to be owners in possession of 60 shares in the property consisting of two storeyed pucca shops over land comprising khevat No. 31/1, Khatauni No. 34/1, Khasra No. 81, measuring 52 Sq. yards 4 Sq. feet, situated at Mauza Banikhet, Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba (hereinafter referred to be as the suit property), against appellants and respondents No. 3 to 11 (hereinafter referred to be as the defendants) on the grounds that the suit property is joint between the parties and has not been partitioned. Defendants are in possession of more share and plaintiffs requested them time and again to get the suit property partitioned, but they did not do so. The plaintiffs requested defendants not to demolish the suit property till, partition, but they are adamant and have started demolishing it with a view to raise new construction.

(3.) The suit has been contested only by defendants No. 1 to 6 by filing written statement to the plaint. They have raised preliminary objections of maintainability and estoppels. On merits, the defendants have admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of 30 shares, but the defendants are in possession of whole premises, for the last so many years and question of demolishing it does not arise. The premises in dispute has been constructed exclusively by Shri Ashwani Kumar, son of defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 2, by spending huge amount about 23 years back in the presence of plaintiffs and at that time, plaintiffs never objected. The shop is in the ground floor and the first floor is being used by defendants as their residence.