KUMAR VIVEK Vs. BINDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, with the consent of both the parties, this appeal was heard for its final disposal along with IA No. 5465 of 2005 when it was listed under the heading "For Hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (In short "C.P.C."), this appeal is disposed of finally by this order.

(2.) Appellants/defendants have filed this appeal for setting aside order dated 20-1-2005 passed by Sub Judge XII, Patna in Title (Partition) Suit No. 586 of 2002 appointing a receiver in respect of 5/9th share of suit properties and directing the receiver to furnish security with regard to account which he will receive in respect of 5/9th share of suit properties, submit his account in the last of every month, to receive remuneration of 10% of the amount received from 5/9th share of suit property and to deposit balance amount in Court which will remain deposited till the decision of the suit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs have filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 586 of 2002 claiming 5/9th share in the suit properties fully described in Schedule I of plaint (Annexure-1). The suit properties as detailed in Schedule I of plaint are of two types. One property is described as Deo Bhawan situate at Mithapur P. S. Jakkanpur, Patna and other properties are agricultural land situate at Mauza Sipara, Dasratha and Jaganpura. Janak Singh, Deo Prasad Singh and Ram Pyare Singh were brothers. Deo Prasad Singh who was issueless died in the state of jointness with his brothers and after his death, Janak Singh and Ram Pyare Singh became the owners of joint property with equal shares. Ram Pyare Singh was married to Chain Kueri Devi and she died issueless. Thereafter, Ram Pyare Singh married Pan Kueri Devi. Plaintiff No. 1 is daughter of Ram Pyare Singh from this Pan Kueri Devi and Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of plaintiff No. 1 meaning thereby they are grandsons of Ram Pyare Singh. Because Ram Pyare Singh did not have a son from Pan Kueri Devi, so he married Deo Kueri Devi who was his third wife and from Deo Kueri Devi, he got a son late Vijoy Singh. Late Meena Devi who was defendant No. 1 was wife of this late Vijoy Singh. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of late Vijoy Singh and late Meena Devi. The further case of plaintiffs/respondents is that there was a partition of joint family properties through registered deed of partition dated 26-6-1987 between the branches of Janak Singh and Ram Pyare Singh. Suit properties were allotted to late Vijoy Singh, father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who was the only male person who represented the branch of Ram Pyare Singh in that partition. Binda Devi and her sons who are plaintiffs/respondents were not parties to that partition deed and in fact they had no knowledge about this partition deed dated 26-6-1987 and Binda Devi could come to know it in the month of Jeth, 2001 when late Vijoy Singh disclosed this matter to her. According to plaintiffs/respondents, they have got share in the properties which fell to the share of branch of Ram Pyare Singh and after partition some other properties were acquired and all properties are mentioned in Schedule I of plaint which are suit land. So long late Vijoy Singh was alive, he used to care for plaintiffs and give share of produce and income to them but after his death, the attitude of defendants completely changed and they are not giving anything to plaintiffs/respondents which compelled plaintiffs/respondents to file the partition suit. According to plaintiffs/respondents, the defendants/appellants are realising several thousands of rupees as rent from Deo Bhawan and huge income from agricultural land but they are not giving any share to plaintiffs/respondents and they are damaging the interests of plaintiffs/respondents and they have sold some land and had invested the income in market building known as Deo Bhawan and they have started negotiation to sell the suit properties to different persons and, therefore, they want to gain unlawfully and to cause loss to plaintiffs/ respondents.