PUKHRAJ Vs. SHYAMLAL ALIAS RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD at admission stage.

(2.) IN this second appeal, the following findings of facts were- recorded by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Jalore through judgment and decree dated 8. 5. 1997 in civil original suit No. 4/95 and the same were upheld by the learned District Judge, Jalore through judgment and decree dated 12. 12. 2003 in appeal No. 28/97:- (i) That disputed wall marked K to L in site plan Ex. 1 is a joint property between the plaintiffs-appellants and defendants- respondents. (ii) That since it is a joint property, therefore, plaintiffs-appellants had a right to seek partition of the disputed joint wall. (iii) That since the disputed wall is very old one and is in a dilapidated condition, therefore, it was not possible to make division of that wall by metes and bounds and practically also that cannot be divided between two. (iv) That so far as comparative need of the disputed joint wall between the parties was concerned, there was no need now for the plaintiffs-appellants and need of the defendants-respondents for the disputed joint wall was found more and thus, plaintiffs- appellants should be compensated by a reasonable compensation and the learned Civil Judge has assessed valuation of the disputed wall at Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiffs-appellants would be entitled to get half of that amount i. e. Rs. 5000/- from the defendants-respondents. However, on the point of compensation, the learned first appellate court remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge. Out of the above findings, the findings No. (iii) and (iv) have been challenged by appellants-plaintiffs in this second appeal.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the disputed wall was a joint property between the parties.