Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: - This order of mine shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals, one bearing No.2722 of 2015 arising out of decision of civil suit No.165 of 2005 titled as Bharat Bhushan and others vs. Anand Kumar and others (hereinafter called suit no.1) claiming separate possession through partition of ½ share and the other bearing No.1263 of 2015 arising out of decision of civil suit No.392 of 2005 titled as Anand Kumar and another vs. Bharat Bhushan (hereinafter called suit no.2) for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the appellant-plaintiffs from interfering into peaceful possession of the suit property.

2. Suit No.1 has been dismissed, whereas, suit No.2 has been decreed. It is in these circumstances that both the Regular Second Appeals are filed at the instance of plaintiffs in suit no.1 and defendants in suit no.2.

3. It would be apt to give preface of the matter.

4. Bharat Bhusan, Brij Bhushan and Sanjiv Kumar sons of Piare Lal claiming to be adopted sons of Sohan Lal son of Ram Bhagat, Geeta Devi (widow) and Anita Rani, Sunita Rani (daughters) of Piare Lal instituted a suit for separate possession claiming ½ share in respect of suit property on the premise that Piare Lal, predecessor of the plaintiffs was the natural son of Arjan Dass but adopted by Sohan Lal as he had no male issue. It was mentioned that property comprising of 7 Kothas, 1 Godown, 1 Deori, one shop and a court yard was sold by Janki Dass son of Ganeshi Mal to firm M/s Kesho Ram Kedar Nath, Vikram Mandi Kotkapura through its partner Hardwari Lal, vide registered sale deed dated 454 dated 19.5.1933 which consisted of following partners in equal share:-

1. Hardwari Lal

2. Sohan Lal

3. Kedar Nath

4. Kesho Ram

5. Later on, Kedar Nath and Kesho Ram retired as partners and only Hardwari Lal and Sohan Lal became its partners and after the death of Sohan Lal, his adopted son Piare Lal became partner of the firm. It has been further pleaded that the firm stood dissolved since long and the suit property was owned by plaintiffs in ½ share being legal heirs of Piare Lal, adopted son of Sohan Lal and Hardwari Lal’s natural heirs Anand Kumar, Kulbhushan and children of Arjan Dass namely, Sham Lal and Pardeep Kumar. The property was demolished and a new shopping complex was constructed on the ground floor and residential complex on the first floor.

6. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and the aforementioned suit was contested by the aforesaid defendants raising numerous preliminary objections vis-a-vis value of the Court fee, jurisdiction and the fact that plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, much less, owners. Piare Lal was not the adopted son of Sohan Lal, nor was ever partner in the firm Kesho Ram Kedar Nath and neither had any links with the suit property, thus, the factum of Piare Lal becoming partner of the firm on the death of Sohan Lal was meaningless. The factum of retirement of Kesho Ram and Kedar Nath was not denied but it was stated that plaintiffs never became the owners to the extent of ½ share of the suit property being legal heirs of Piare Lal. The expenses spent on the construction was borne out of the pocket of the answering defendants.

7. Defendants No.3 and 4 also filed their separate written statement and admitted the factum that Hardwari Lal was the son of Ram Bhagat and reiterated the averments made in the written statement of defendants No.1 and 2. Similar stand was taken in respect of the written statement filed by defendants No. 5 and 7.

8. In the replication, plaintiffs denied the pleadings qua possession of the suit property. It was stated that Om Parkash predecessor in interest of the parties admitted the stand of the plaintiffs that there was a partial partition which was duly signed by predecessor of the defendants, i.e., Hardwari Lal, Arjan Dass, Om Parkash and Pi