Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

(2). This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.11.96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in civil suit no. 83/91 Jagdish vs. Amrit Lal. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge no.1, Sri Ganganagar declared the parties to the suit to be entitled to 1/3 share in the house in question and further held the plaintiff to be entitled for partition.

(3). The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings on issues no. 1, 2, 3 and 7 by the trial Court are incorrect and against law. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar.

(4). It appears that respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Lal filed a suit for partition of a residential house no. 78-P-Block, Sri Ganganagar. According to the averments made in the plaint, the house in dispute was purchased on 2nd April, 1960, in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants. On the date of the execution of the sale-deed, the house was duly constructed. The money for the purchase of the house was supplied by the father of the plaintiff and the respondents and during his life time, the father of the plaintiff and the defendants continued to live in the disputed house. He expired on 5th July, 1988. It was further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendants were jointly in possession of the house in dispute, but after the demise of their father, some differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendants and in consequence thereof, the plaintiff found it difficult to live in the house in dispute unless partition took place. It was also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff requested the defendants for partition of the house, but latter did not care. Consequently, a notice was sent to the defendants on 12th March, 1991, but the defendants did not care to reply the same. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for the partition of the house in dispute.

(5). A joint written statement was filed by the defendant Amrit Lal and Subhash Chandra. It was admitted in the written statement that the house in dispute was purchased on 2nd April, 1960 in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants. However, it was pleaded in the written statement that after the purchase of the house, the defendants alone constructed rooms, two kitchens and two bath rooms and spent about Rs. 2,50,000/-. It was also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff was never in possession of the house in dispute and after the death of the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, defendants alone continued in the possession of the house. Plaintiffs share in the house in dispute was denied by the defendants and it was pleaded that by adverse possession, both the defendants acquired sole ownership rights in the house in dispute and the right and title of the plaintiff was extinguished.

(6). The learned trial Judge (Additional Civil Judge) Sri Ganganagar framed as many as 7 issues. Issue no. 8 was added on 1st August, 1985 by the learned Additional District Judge, to whose Court, the suit had been transferred. Issues no. 1,2,3 and 7 are reproduced below:-

¼1½ vk;k fookfnr ifjlj ij izfroknhx.k ds }kjk gh fuek.kZ dk;Z fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g igys iq[rk rkehjlqnk ugha Fkk\

¼2½ vk;k oknh fookfnr edku ua- 78-ih Cykd Jhxaxkuxj dk foHkktu djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gkW rks fdl izdkj ls\

¼3½ vk;k fookfnr edku ij izfroknhx.k dk la;qDr :e ls dCtk lu~ 1960 ls fujUrj fcuk fdlh jksdVksd ds kkafriw.kZ pyk vk jgk gS o dCtk eq[kkyQkuk ds vk/kkj ij bl edku ds ekfyd gks x, gS vkSj bl izdkj oknh dk fgLlk lekIr gks pqdk gSA

¼7½ vuqrks"k\

(7). After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment, decided issue no.1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant. The learned Addit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document