The possession of ancestral property presumes ownership unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim to the property.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Present regular second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1 - Mahesh Soni, against the concurrent finding of decreetal of suit, filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), by challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2016, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (Trial Court), as affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 (First Appellate Court).

2. Factual matrix of the case is that plaintiffs (Rama Nand and Anil) filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful use and possession of ancestral co-parcenary property of the plaintiffs, boundaries of which is detailed in the plaint. It is also pleaded in the suit that if during the course of trial, defendants succeed in illegally ousting the plaintiffs, their possession be restored to its original position.

3. As per pleaded case of the plaintiffs, one Ram Dayal (father of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-father of plaintiff No. 2) had been the owner in possession of residential house, situated in the lal dora. Said property was orally partitioned by Ram Dayal amongst his three sons, namely, (i) Chandgi Ram, (ii) Rama Nand, and (iii) Devi Chand, in equal share. Defendant No. 2 - Champa Devi is widow of Chandgi Ram, whereas defendant Nos. 3 and 4 - Chhabil Chand and Muni Lal respectively, are sons of Chandgi Ram, who were impleaded in the array of defendants by Trial Court, vide order dated 30.04.2015.

4. Plaintiff No. 1 (Rama Nand) and legal heirs of Devi Chand are owners in possession of the suit property in equal share, which has been shown in Red colour, marked with letters 'ABCD', and Chandgi Ram and his legal heirs are owners in possession of portion shown in Green colour, marked with letters 'CDEF', in the site plan attached with the plaint.

5. As per pleadings in the plaint, in fact, defendant No. 1 - Mahesh Soni (appellant herein) was the sole party initially in the suit and the suit for injunction was instituted because defendant No. 1, being stranger to the plaintiffs and a strong headed person, was bent upon to occupy the property of the plaintiffs.

6. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, apart taking formal objections, such as - cause of action; locus-standi; and maintainability etc., there was complete denial of the pleadings raised by the plaintiffs. However, it was not denied that Ram Dayal was the owner in possession of the property in dispute, who equally distributed the property amongst his three sons. However, it is pleaded in the written statement that about 35 years back, plaintiffs have orally made a family settlement and given their share to Munni Lal etc., and in lieu of some money, possession of their share had been handed over by them to Chandgi Ram, Munni Lal and Chabil Dass etc. Since then, Champa Devi w/o Chandgi Ram etc. had been owner in possession of the property in dispute.

Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that he was put in possession of the disputed property in pursuance to an agreement to sell duly executed by said Champa Devi etc. (defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4) in favour of his wife - Sunita Devi, after obtaining an amount of Rs.90,000/-. After denying all other pleadings, defendant No. 1 pleaded for dismissal of suit.

7. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, who were imp leaded as party to the suit by virtue of allowing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, filed their joint written statement by submitting that the property in dispute had been mutually partitioned in the year 1977, during the life time of Ram Dayal and Chandgi Ram. Plaintiff No. 1 alongwith his family members had left the village in