BALWANT RAM Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a registered partition-deed dated 13.4.1972, the suit property (48.17 bighas of agricultural land situated in Sri Ganganagar District) was partitioned. The appellant-plaintiff Balwant Ram himself admitted in this partition-deed that the suit property was a coparcenary property which is being divided between father and sons as per the partition-deed.

(2.) After about forty years of the registration of the said partition-deed, now appellant-plaintiff Balwant Ram has come out with a case that the partition-deed was a bogus document and actually the suit property was legally self-acquired property of the appellant and not ancestral property as stated in the registered partition-deed dated 13.4.1972. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit property not being ancestral property and being self-acquired property of the appellant, the same could not have been partitioned during the life time of the appellant. On this ground, the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the said partition-deed be declared void ab initio and ineffective so far as legal rights of the appellants are concerned. It has been argued on his behalf that the registered partition-deed was only an exhibitory document which was executed to settle the family dispute and only to satisfy the wife of the appellant with whom the relations of the appellant were not cordial.

(3.) Respondent no.2 Ramesh Kumar strongly opposed the submissions of the appellant and after hearing both the parties, Addl. District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 63/2013 titled as Balwant Ram v. Ashok Kumar and ors. dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Now, appellantplaintiff Balwant Ram has come in appeal against the said order.