(1.) THE respondent plaintiffs filed a suit for partition. It was pleaded that the parties had purchased a two storeyed kothi and land described in the plaint from one Parshotam Singh Chopra. This was in pursuance of sale deed dated 22nd Nov. 1963. At that point of time, the property was in possession of tenants. Later on, the relation between the parties got strained. They sought partition of the property.
(2.) THE plaintiffs were claiming 3/5th share in the property whereas, the defendant appellants herein were claiming one half share. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the present appellants who figured as defendants in the suit were entitled to half share of the disputed property. Evidence was led and a preliminary decree was passed holding that the plaintiff -respondents are entitled to 3/5th share in the suit property and the remaining 2/5the share was to go to the present appellants i.e. Amir Chand and Lal Chand in equal shares.
(3.) WITH a view to give effect to the preliminary decree, a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner gave his report. Objections were taken on record. The District Judge, Jammu, considered the issue and noticed that limited objections were raised to the report of the Commissioner. One objection was that while demarcating, the boundary wall should not be treated as common as it would be a source of further litigation. Both the parties agreed that this issue can be settled and it was agreed that the plaintiff respondents would pay a sum of Rs. 1000 to the defendants and the common wall shown in the site plan would be exclusively owned by the plaintiffs. There was also some difference with regard to the opening of the doors. This was also settled. Both the sides agreed that they will close the doors. The dispute with regard to the amount of compensation for the portion which was given in excess to the plaintiff respondents was also settled. The amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 3000. Both the parties agreed that this should be fixed at Rs. 4000. The appeal was decided accordingly.