SURAJ PARKASH Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for possession of a home situated in Seral Pain, Srinagar, more particularly described in Para 4 of the petition of plaint, and for rendition of accounts as regards mesne profits thereof.

(2.) THE plaintiffâ„¢s case is that his grandfather, lala Kripa Ram, constituted a joint Hindu Family with his brothers, lala Des Raj and lala Hari Bhagat, that the said three brothers carried on joint business at Srinagar and Jammu, that his father, lala Banwari Lal, died during his infancy that after the death of his father he remained outside the State in connection with his education and returned therefrom about four years ago when he called upon lala Girdhari Lal defendant No. 1, partition the entire joint immovable property and business that the said defendant kept on putting him off and ultimately told him that the entire movable and immovable property had been partitioned during his infancy by virtue of a deed of settlement and that he had no right to demand de novo partition of the property, that enquiries made from some other members of the family also confirmed the statement of the defendant regarding the said family settlement, that defendant No. 1 is in possession of the entire suit property and has by representing himself to be the owner thereof inducted defendants Nos 3 to 10 on the property and has been receiving rents and profits thereof from them, that as the defendants have not despite several requests and written notices handed over possession of the suit property to him and rendered accounts of the mesne profits in respect of the use and occupation of the property, hence the suit.

(3.) THE suit was initially resisted by defendant No 1 alleging inter -alia that the entire joint family property and business was partitioned during the infancy of the plaintiff and in token thereof partition deed dated Chet 27, 2009, registered on Har 19, 2010, by way of family settlement came into existence, that though by virtue of the said family settlement the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff he abandoned the same and left the State whereupon he i. e - the defendant occupied the property and has been in adverse possession thereof and has been receiving rents and profits thereof as a full owner from the other pefendante to whom he i. e. defendant No I let out the suit property as tenants and that the suit is time barred.