MAM RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1976 the present suit was filed for partition of. properties by the respondents on the ground that the plaintiffs who are legal representatives of Udairam have.half share for the land in dispute alongwith Defendant No. 1 Lallu as per terms of patta and which is recorded in the revenue record. As such it was prayed that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 43, 44, 45, 48, 151, 152, 303, 304, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 and 252 situated in village Kherla, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar be divided equally ? and ? between plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 Lallu.

(2.) It was also mentioned in the plaint that the defendants including the Defendant No. 1 did not permit the plaintiffs to cultivate the land and as such relief for injunction was also sought alongwith a decree for partition.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement in which it was admitted that the land was given on patta to Udairam predecessor of the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1 Lallu, but after some time Udailal left village Kherla and went away Bas Kripal Nagar and Defendants Nos. 2 to 12 came of occupation of the same. It was also alleged that the land has been divided between Defendants No. 2 to 12 who are the petitioners herein and Defendant No. 1 Lallu and this fact has already recorded in the revenue record that. Defendants No. 2 and 3 who are now represented by petitioners being the legal representatives of Asha and Laxman Defendants No. 2 and 3, were in possession of ? of the land and that Lallu was in possession to the possession of the other half share. It was contended further that the defendants Asharam and Laxman represented by the petitioners herein have impliedly.became the khatedars and that the plaintiffs have no right to claim any partition or injunction.