Honble GOYAL, J.–Since these two appeals filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 Mrs. T. Crauford, one against the preliminary decree dated 9.9.1996 and another against final decree dated 19.2.1998 passed by Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur in a partition suit No. 282/1996, therefore both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2). Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 4.1.1986 seeking the relief against the appellant-defendant No. 1 T. Crauford (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant No. 1) in regard to a bungalow commonly known as `kaptan sahab ka bangla situated at Amritpuri, Agro Road, Jaipur stating therein that parties of the suit are sons and daughters of Mrs. E. Disilva, one of the daughter and legal heir of Late Captain R. Alexander. The mother of the parties Smt. E. Disilva expired in the year 1940 who was entitled to 1/4th share in the property of her father. It was also stated that other three heirs of late Captain R. Alexander namely Mr. P. Alexander, Miss. Egnes Alexander and C. Alexander died issue- less, therefore all four plaintiffs and defendants each acquired 1/4th share in the properties of late Captain R. Alexander. It was further stated that some properties of deceased R. Alexander have been acquired by the Government and some properties were involved in some another litigations, therefore, only one bungalow situated at Amritpuri, Agra Road, Jaipur remained for partition. It has also been averred that parties of the suit are in possession of different parts of the bungalow in dispute which is shown in the map annexed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1 tried to take forcible possession of room No. 6, therefore it became necessary to file a suit for partition. It was also stated that house tax of the bungalow was being deposited by all the parties jointly.

(3). Defendant No. 1 Mrs. T. Crauford contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the material facts narrated in the plaint and averred that plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 have no relations with the property of Late Captain R. Alexander who died on 19.6.1941 leaving behind him two sons namely Peter Alexander and C. Alexander and one daughter Ms. Egnes Alexander. Another daughter Mrs. E. Disilva had expired in the lifetime of her father Captain R. Alexander leaving behind her plaintiffs and defendants. It was further stated that Peter Alexander and C. Alexander died issue-less and Mrs. E. Disilva, natural mother of the parties, got married in the lifetime of deceased Captain R. Alexander and had taken sufficient dowry, therefore, Ms. Egnes Alexander, the only surviving daughter of deceased Captain R. Alexander, became the sole owner of his property. It was also stated that defendant No. 1 T. Crauford was adopted by Mrs. Egnes Alexander on 15.5.1933 about which entry is available in the church register and since then she was being treated as a daughter by Ms. Egnes Alexander, therefore after the death of Ms. Egnes Alexander in the year 1977 the defendant No. 1 T. Crauford became the sole owner of the property in dispute. It was also averred that defendant No. 1 T. Crauford permitted to the plaintiffs to live in the bungalow as a licensee, therefore, it cannot be presumed that plaintiffs are living and having possession in the suit property as legal heirs of late Captain R. Alexander.

(4). Defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and also prayed for partition.

(5). The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of both the parties framed following issues:-

^^1- vk;k fooknxzLr laifRr lHkh i{kdkjku LOk- dIrku vysDts.Mj ds okfjl gksus ds ukrs leku :i ls pkj Hkkxksa esa foHkktu ;ksX; gSaA

2- vk;k ifjlj ds if-pe esa jkLrk ftls uDks esa MCyw ls crk;k x;k gS ml oknhx.k r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document