SHIV PRASAD GARG Vs. BHAIRON SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction filed against the respondent Bhairon Singh.

(2.) THERE is a property bearing old Municipal No. 1/552 and new Nos. 1 and 2 situated at Amla Marg, Beawar. The said property belonged to one Shri Vinodi Lal Mathur and on his death it devolved on his sons and grand -sons. The appellant purchased 7 out of 9 shares in this property under various registered sale deeds executed during the period 1961 to 1965. The respondent is in occupation of a part of the said house. The appellant filed a suit (No. 4/1964) in the court of Civil Judge, Beawar for partition of his 7/9th share in the property. In the said suit the appellant impleaded the other co -sharers in the property as defendants Nos. 1 to 11. In addition to the co -sharers, the appellant also impleaded the respondent as well as the other tenants who were in occupation of the premises as defendants Nos. 12 to 18 in the said suit. The appellant prayed for partition of the property by metes and bounds and for being put in exclusive possession of his 7/9th share in the said property. The appellant also prayed for a decree for rendition of accounts in respect of rents collected by the defendants or any one of (hem. The respondent (who was defendant No. 14 in the said suit) did not contest that suit and the suit proceeded ex -parte against him. The co -sharer defendants, how ever, contested the suit. By judgment(Ex.4) dated 16th November, 1968 the Civil Judge passed a preliminary decree (Ex.5) for partition in the said suit where by it was declared that the appellant has 7/9th share in the property while defendants Nos. 1 to 11 have 2/9th share in the same. The prayer for rendition of accounts was not allowed and the Commissioner was appointed for effecting a partition of the property by metes and bounds. The Commissioner submitted his report and on the basis of the report of the Commissioner, the Civil Judge, Beawar, by his judgment (Ex. 13) dated 30th November, 1969 passed a final decree (Ex. 14) where by the portion marked A, B,C, D, E, F and A on the ground -floor in the site plan marked 'D' was allotted to defendants Nos. 1 to 11 and rest of the property shown by A, J, I, H, G, B was allotted to the appellant on the ground -floor and the first floor. The portion of the property which was in occupation of the respondent fell in the share allotted to the appellant.

(3.) THEREAFTER the appellant purchased the 2/9fh share in the property from the other co -sharers (who were defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in the suit) by registered sale -deed dated 19th June, 1973.