Mere inclusion of the name in the patta does not confer any independent right.

Bhagwati Prasad, J.-Heard.

2. This first appeal arises out of a decision of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 6/94(48/84).

3. The suit was filed for partition of the properties in between the family members. The suit was filed on the premises that there was a common ancestor Mahadeo Chand. He had three sons; Jugraj Chand, Dilsukh Chand and Mahipal Chand. Jugraj Chand had contracted two marriages. Out of first marriage was born appellant Narendra Bhandari and out of second marriage was born Vinod Bhandari. The suit was filed by second wife of Jugraj Chand but sons being alive, she was not considered entitled to file suit for the purpose, therefore, Vinod Bhandari was impleaded as plaintiff and the suit proceeded.

4. The suit was contested by the appellant Narendra Bhandari. The suit relates to a piece of land apart from other properties. Now the dispute circles around the piece of land situated in Sardarpura property only. The property was in possession of Late Shri Mahadeo Chand. In the erstwhile State of Mewar, the pattas were issued on the basis of possession. While the patta for the disputed land was issued, alongwith three brothers Mahipal Chand, Jugraj Chand, Dilsukh Chand, son of Jugraj Chand from his first wife, Narendra Bhandari was also included. This inclusion of name of Narendra Bhandari in the patta is the basic cause of action on which the appeal is based.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the name of Narendra Bhandari having been included in the patta, he had acquired a right because his name was included for the love and affection which the grandfather Mahadeo Chand had for the appellant because by that time, he had lost his mother. Since he had lost his mother, it was considered that his name be included. On the basis of such inclusion, the appellant claimed that he has one fourth share in the property of Mahadeo Chand and thus, the share determined by the trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be corrected in the light of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further urged that on the disputed piece of land, a building is there which was renovated by him. The trial Court has not given any amount for the expenses incurred by the appellant and since the money spent by the appellant has not been accounted for by the trial Court, he is entitled to received the money which he has spent on the property. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has wrongly decided Issue No. 1 which speaks of non-division of the property. In fact, the property was apportioned when the name of the appellant was included in the patta and that apportionment amounted to division of the property. Issue No. 2 was not pressed. Issue No. 3 related to alternation in property and Issue No. 4 related to the partition. Issue No. 5 related to expenses.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent per contra urged that inclusion of name in the patta by itself does not entitle the appellant to claim any share independent of what a coparcener in HUF property

gets. The inclusion of name was only by way of identifying the progeny of the family and it was not in the way of love and affection. The application filed by Shri Mahadeo Chand for getting the patta issued is on record which speaks nothing about such bequething or alienation or partition or assignment to Narendra Bhandari, appellant in the manner and way it is claimed. This document could be referred to establish as to what was the intention and purpose of inclusion of name of Narendra Bhandari in the patta. That having not been established by the appellant, it cannot be claimed by mere argument that Narendra Bhandari was assigned or given any share in the property to the exclusion of other share holders in the coparcener property. In this manner, learned Counsel stated that the appeal is based on mis-conceived thought of th