THAKUR CHAUDHRY Vs. BRAHMDEO CHAUDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order by which the court below has transposed the plaintiffs to the category of defendants and defendants second party to the category of plaintiffs.

(2.) It appears that a suit for partition was filed by the original plaintiffs for partition of the ancestral properties between them and the defendants second party. It was further stated that some properties had originally belonged to the ancestor (sic) of these parties and one Ram Kheli Choudhry and one Gudar Chaudhry, but they had been partitioned in the year 1940 between them on the one hand and the ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants first party on the other. Thus different shares were claimed by the plaintiffs in respect of those properties as also the other ancestral properties. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs' case was that plaintiff No. 1 had been adopted in the Kritrim form by his father's brother and, therefore, was entitled to the lands and interest as a whole and claimed half share besides the 1/4th share, he was entitled to in respect of his natural father. Gudar's descendants and Ramkheli Chaudhry were impleaded as defendants second and third parties.

(3.) The defence of the defendants first party was that the plaintiff had been adopted in the Duttak form of adoption and thus could not claim with respect to the natural father's properties and so they were entitled to only half share. The defendants second party however, filed a written statement alleging that their ancestor Gudar was a full brother of the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants first party, and, therefore, they were entitled to share in the entire properties. Their case further was that Gudar continued to be joint with his brothers. They also challenged the story of adoption. Accordingly, they claimed that only Gudar and the father of the plaintiffs being the only coparcener, they were entitled to half share in the entire properties.