NANDAN LAL Vs. JAI RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.88 (decree signed on 27.7.88) passed by Sri Suresh Prasad Sinha, Subordinate Judge, III, at Jamshedpur in Title (Partition) Suit No. 109/28 of 1985/88 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

(2.) The appellants before this Court were defendants 1 to 3 whereas respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were defendants 4 to 8 before the lower court. The suit was filed for partition of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint according to the share of the parties. According to the plaintiff the house premises described in schedule formerly belonged to one Parbat Lal who died in 1955 leaving behind his four sons, namely, Murari Lal, Banwari Lal, Jairarm Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. Jatram Lal is the plaintiff and Kanhai Lal is defendant No. 8. Murari Lal died about 10 years ago leaving behind defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 as his son, daughter and widow respectively. The heirs of Murari Lal inherited the share of Murari Lal in the property in equal share amongst themselves. Similarly, Banwari Lal died five years ago leaving behind defendant Nos. 4,5,6 and 7 as his widow, daughters and son respectively. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 inherited the share of Banwari Lal in equal share or proportion. The four sons of Parbat Lal continued in joint possession of the house property even after the death of their father. They agreed to partition the suit property among themselves in equal share i.e. 1/4th share each, but the same was not done by metes and bounds, rather, they continued to live in different portions of the suit house according to their convenience. They started their business separately but the house property remained in joint occupation. After the death of Murari Lal and Banwari Lal their heirs also continued residing in their separate respective portions of the suit house. The ground rent, electricity and water charges were still being paid jointly to the Tisco, being the landlord, in the joint names of all the four brothers of the plaintiff. It is alleged that during the life time of Banwari Lal, he had taken the signature of all the brothers in some blank paper with an understanding that he would get a partition deed prepared incorporating the fact that each would have equal share in the suit property, but thereafter, Banwari Lal did nothing of the kind because he was occupying almost double the share of the plaintiff. Regarding arrangement and enjoyment of the suit property, dispute cropped up as a result of which on 17th November, 1985 the plaintiff demanded partition from the defendants of the suit house. The said request for partition was refused and hence the suit.

(3.) By filing written statement defendant Nos. 1 to 7 contested the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement, whereas defendant Nos. 4 to 7 were in another set. Defendant No. 8, Kanhaiya Lal did not contest the suit and the substituted heirs 9 to 21, though appeared in the suit by filing vakalatnama, did not file any written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff.