The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions to determine ownership rights and issue decrees for partition and separate possession in property disputes.

JUDGMENT : – This first appeal has been filed by appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-8-1997 passed by Addl. District Judge, Begumganj (Raisen) in Civil Suit No. 10-A/1988 whereby suit for possession of house and damages filed by original plaintiff Kapoorchand (now his representatives) has been dismissed.

2. In short the facts are that Mangaljeet was owner of the suit property, who died after leaving two sons namely Inderchand, Kapoorchand and one daughter Bhuribai, who died issueless. The present appellants are descendants of original plaintiff Kapoorchand and the defendants are descendants of Inderchand. It is alleged that in his lifetime, Mangaljeet partitioned his property in which he gave one portion of house to plaintiff Kapoorchand and another portion was given to Inderchand and kept middle portion for himself, in which till his death daughter Bhuribai remained in possession. This middle portion only is in dispute. It is alleged that by way of registered deed (Tamleeknama) dated 6-1-1947 (Ex.P/1A) Bhuribai was given life interest in the disputed property and she was not having any right to alienate/transfer the suit property to any other person and it was specifically mentioned in the deed dated 6-1-1947 that after death of Bhuribai the property would fall to Kapoorchand. It is alleged that after death of Bhuribai, the defendants took possession on the house illegally, therefore, the suit was filed by Kapoorchand for possession claiming himself to be the exclusive owner on the basis of Deed (Ex.P/1A).

3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property on the basis of Will (Ex.D/3) allegedly executed by Bhuribai in favour of Lakhmichand (Laxmichand). Denying all other allegations, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. After taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, learned trial Court held that the house in question was not given for residence to Bhuribai and it is not proved that Bhuribai had no right to transfer. It is held that the deed dated 6-1-1947 (Ex.P/1A) is also not proved to have been executed by Mangaljeet, hence the plaintiff is not owner of disputed house. It is also held that the defendants have not forcibly taken possession on 25-7-1986, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to vacant possession of the disputed house.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that learned trial Court has neither framed any issue with regard to Will (Ex.D/3) nor recorded any finding to the effect that the Will (Ex.D/3) is a genuine document executed by Bhuribai in favour of the defendant. He submits that undisputedly the disputed house belonged to father of original plaintiff and defendant 1. He submits that by way of registered deed dated 6-1-1947 (Ex.P/1A), the property was given for residence to Bhuribai and as she was having only life interest, therefore, after her death, it would fall to the plaintiff and as she was not owner of the property therefore, she could not bequeath the same in favour of defendant Lakhmichand. He submits that in any case in absence of proof of Will (Ex.D/3) and the plaintiff being son of Mangaljeet, is entitled for decree in his favour with regard to 1/2 share as well as preliminary decree of partition and separate possession.

6. In support of argument of alternative claim of 1/2 share and partition, the learned counsel placed reliance on provision contained in Order 7, Rule 7, CPC so also on the decisions in the case of Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad and another, AIR 2002 SC 136; Kashi Prasad vs. Banshidhar and other, AIR 2001 MP 185; Rangappa vs. Jayamma, 1987(2) Kar.L.J. 369; Ramnarayan Shrinarayan Agarwal and others vs. Mangeram Radheshyam Hardoi Firm, 1979 MPLJ 150 (DB); and Gangaram Ramchandra vs.