CHANAN RANI Vs. SARDAR NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Court No.7 (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court ") in Civil Suit No.86/76 [64/80], so far as the findings recorded by the trial court relating to the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 are concerned. The respondents-defendants have filed their cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC in the appeal challenging the said decree, so far as the findings relating to the issue Nos.3, 5 and 7 are concerned.

(2.) THE appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking partition and her 1/8th share in the immovable properties belonging to the HUF including the house bearing No.1182 situated at Natanion Ki Gali, Chora Rasta, Jaipur, and sought permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties described in the Schedules K and Kh annexed to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint interalia that Late Shri Niranjan Singh, husband of the appellant-plaintiff, was the eldest son of the defendant No.1 Sardar Nanak Singh. The said Niranjan Singh expired on 18.02.1976 at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff, before the partition i.e. 1947, the whole family of the defendants including Shri Niranjan Singh were staying at Multan (Pakistan), where they had some properties belonging to the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) of which the defendant No.1 was the 'karta '. After the partition, the whole family came to India leaving their properties in Pakistan, for which the defendant No.1 was given the compensation to the tune of about Rs.35,000.00 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act 1950. The defendant No.1 thereafter purchased the residential house bearing No.1182 at the Natanion Ki Gali, Jaipur and other properties from the said amount of compensation received by him as the karta of HUF. It was further case of the plaintiff that initially the said house No.1182 was occupied by the tenants, and therefore the family of defendant No.1 was staying in a rented premises, and after sometime part of the said house having been vacated, the plaintiff and her husband Niranjan Singh had started staying over there. Thereafter, the remaining part having been vacated by the tenants, the defendants had also come to stay in the said house. It was also case of the plaintiff that during the said period, her husband Niranjan Singh was working in the Sachivalaya, Jaipur and had his own independent income. On the death of her husband Niranjan Singh on 18.02.1976, the defendants started misbehaving with the plaintiff and tried to take possession of the movable properties purchased by the plaintiff and her husband from their own income. The defendant No.1 also refused to part with the amount of insurance policy, in which he was mentioned as nominee. According to the plaintiff, the said house bearing No.1182 and other immovable properties having been purchased from the nucleus of the HUF, the plaintiff had 1/8th share in the said properties. Hence the said suit, claiming her share in the immovable properties, and seeking the permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties was filed.

(3.) THE trial court after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, partly decreed the suit as per the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the trial court decided the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against and issue Nos.3, 5 and 7 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Being aggrieved of the same, the appellant and respondents have filed the appeal and cross-objections respectively.