PRITI RANJAN MUKHERJEE Vs. NALINI RANJAN MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Defendant's first appeal arising out of the judgment dated 21st February 2007 and Decree dated 21st February 2007 passed by Sub-Judge-VI, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 93 of 2002 (Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee v. Priti Ranjan Mukherjee and Anr.).

(2.) The suit preferred was a partition suit against Defendant Priti Ranjan Mukherjee alone. Subsequently, Defendant No. 2 Sukh Ranjan Mukherjee was also arrayed as Defendant No. 2 during the course of the proceeding. The parties to the suit are real brothers. The reliefs sought was for partition of the suit property and a further request for putting him in possession of his share. The dispute is in respect of Plot No. 1361 of holding No. 498 at Bardaman compound, P.S. Lalpur, district Ranchi. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the said property by means of registered sale deed from one Kali Das Chatterjee on 22nd May 1965. The construction over the said property is claimed by the Plaintiff to be made jointly by the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Plaintiff further stated in the plaint that there was another living brother, namely, Priya Ranjan Mukherjee at the time of construction of the house, who expired at Kolkatta on 11th October 1983. He has left this place permanently for Kolkatta and after his death his family members continued to reside there. The Plaintiff claims that though he has share in the house, but the Defendant has taken over possession of the entire house and did not allow the Plaintiff to stay along with him and, therefore/this necessitated institution of the partition suit.

(3.) By filing his written statement Appellant-Defendant disputed the Plaintiff's case. Title and possession over the suit property as claimed by the Plaintiff, was disputed and consequently the Defendant pleaded that the property is not liable to be partitioned as the Plaintiff is not the co-sharer. Sukh Ranjan Mukherjee, who was arrayed as Defendant No. 2 in course of proceeding, had paid the entire consideration money for purchase of the land and the house was constructed from the income of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff has no share in the property and, therefore, he has no right to seek partition.