SITA DEVI Vs. CHANDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for partition before the trial court while claiming that Patta No. 484 was issued in favour of her father Bhanu Lal and brother Ramchandra for plot No. 20 situated at Ram Mohalla, Jodhpur by the State of Marwar. It was claimed that plot was in fact belonging to her father Bhanu Lal but being eldest son, name of her brother Ramchandra was also inserted in the patta. The appellant has further claimed that before or after the death of Bhanu Lal, no partition took place for the said plot and the appellant and the respondent are having half share each in the said plot. The appellant has further claimed that she has requested the respondent for partition of the plot in question but he has refused for it and is trying to sell the property. It is further claimed that on 13.01.2015 the respondent started construction on the said plot and when she resisted, the construction was stopped. The appellant has prayed before the trial court that a temporary injunction be issued in favour of the appellant.

(3.) The claim of the appellant was disputed by the respondent while claiming that he is the sole owner of the plot in question and patta is also issued in his favour. The respondent has further claimed that a family settlement took place in the year 1950 and the said plot was given to him and since then he is residing in the house constructed on the said plot along with his family. The respondent has further claimed that on 27.05.2000 another family settlement had taken place between the members of his family and the said property was divided into five parts. It is claimed that the appellant is aware about the said family settlement and she was never in possession of the disputed property at any point of time.