FATEH SINGH Vs. NARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1982 passed by the trial Court by which the suit for partition and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) THE dispute is in regard to plot No. 0-1-B, measuring 1171 square yards at Hospital road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The defendant no. 2 in the suit, Har Lal Singh (since deceased)was father (hereinafter referred as defendant H ). The defendant No. 1, Narendra singh (hereinafter to be referred as defen- : dant N) was elder son of defendant H. The plaintiff-appellant, Fateh Singh (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff F) was the younger son of defendant H. It has been alleged that defendant H purchased the plot in dispute in the name of defendant N from his own income and raised the construction as per contribution from the joint family. Thus plaintiff F is also entitled for 1/3 share of the property in dispute as also share of the profit earned y defendant N from rent of the above property. Though defendant H supported the claim of his younger son plaintiff f, however, the elder son defendant N disputed the allegations made by the plaintiff f in his written statement. While giving details of his sources of income defendant N has further stated that the entire property in dispute was purchased by him from his own income and no contribution was ever made either by his father or the younger brother.

(3.) AS per pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed as to whether property in dispute was a joint family property and plaintiff F has 1/3 share in the same? If the above issue is decided in favour of plaintiff F, whether he is entitled for partition and possession of his share ? An issue in regard to an agreement executed by plaintiff F in favour of defendant N on 14-12-1978 to show the declaration of plaintiff F not having any right whatsoever over the property in dispute had also been framed. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of plaintiff f whereas defendant N and defendant H examined only themselves on their behalf. Issue in regard to the Court-fee was not pressed. However, other relevant material issues were decided in favour of defendant n and the suit has been dismissed accordingly by the trial Court.