Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J:- Defendant No.2 has filed this regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of partition to the extent of 1/5th share of house measuring 31 feet x 68 feet situated in Ward No.11, Mansa has been decreed.

2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of the house in question to the extent of 1/5th share and the defendants were owner in possession of the house to the extent of 4/5th share. The plaintiffs claimed to be the legal heirs of Hukum Chand son of Tahla Ram. It was pleaded that Hukum Chand and defendants No.1 to 4 were the five sons of Tahla Ram. The house was owned by Tahla Ram. Hence, after the death of Tahla Ram, Hukum Chand and defendants No.1 to 4 were owners in possession of the house in equal share. Hukum Chand died on 16.09.2003 without executing any Will. The plaintiffs being his only legal heirs were entitled to possession of 1/5th share in the house by way of partition. As the defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs, the filing of suit was necessitated.

3. The suit was contested only by defendant No.2. Defendants No.1, 3 and 4 did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant No.2 took the plea that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the house on the basis of allotment in his favour. Tahla Ram was never the owner of the house. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have no concern with Hukum Chand as he was not married and had no issue. It was also pleaded that Hukum Singh used to reside with his brothers Puran Chand and Bishan Dass- defendants No.1 and 2 respectively, which was evident from his ration card, which was joint with them.

4. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No. 1- Maya Devi as PW-1, who reiterated her case as per the plaint and also tendered various documents.

5. Defendant No.2 appeared as DW-1 and one Kaushal Kumar appeared as DW-2. Various documents were also tendered.

6. Ld. Trial Court held that the documents Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-6 revealed that plaintiff Maya Devi was the wife of Hukum Chand. Ex. P-3 was the copy of passbook of the account of Maya Devi. Ex. P-4 was the copy of voter card of Maya Devi. Ex. P-5 was the copy of ration card of Maya Devi and Ex. P-6 was the copy of Aadhar Card of Maya Devi. Ex P-8 was an order dated 20.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa granting succession certificate to the plaintiffs regarding the movable estate of Hukum Chand. Ex. P-11 was a letter issued by Principal Nehru Memorial Government College, Mansa intimating the plaintiffs that they may receive the service benefits of deceased Hukum Chand being his legal heirs in pursuance to the direction issued by the High Court in CWP No.11982 of 2002. It was held that these documents clearly established that the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of deceased Hukum Chand. As such the contention of defendant No.2 that Hukum Chand had died unmarried and issueless was rejected. Further it was held that Defendant No.2 had not been able to establish that he was owner in possession of the house on the basis of allotment. In his cross-examination he admitted that he had no proof regarding allotment of the house to him. He further admitted that he had not deposited any amount for allotment of the house. In Ex. P-1, House Tax Assessment Register for the year 1998-99 pertaining to the suit property all the five sons of Tahla Ram have been recorded as owners. In the House Tax Assessment Register pertaining to year 1981-82, Sushila Devi wife of Tahla Ram was recorded as owner of the property. In view thereof, it was held that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased Hukum Chand had 1/5th share in the house and they were entitled to separate possession after partition to that extent. The suit was decreed.

7.