Advocates:
['DR VINOD KUMAR RAI', '', 'D C SRIVASTAVA', '', 'VINOD KUMAR SINGH', 'SANJAY KUMAR SINGH', 'A K SRIVASTAVA', 'S K SRIVASTAVA', 'MAHENDRA NARAIN SINGH', 'S P LAL', 'PANKAJ MISHRA', 'KAMESHWAR RAO', 'AMIT KHANNA', 'JUGAL KISHOR KHANNA', 'SHRAWAN KUMAR PANDEY']

1

Court No. - 6

Reserved

A.F.R.

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 447 of 1986

Appellant :- Siddiq Ahmad And Others

Respondent :- Shaukat Ali And Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai,Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai

Counsel for Respondent :- D.C. Srivastava,A.K. Srivastava,Amit

Khanna,Jugal Kishor Khanna,Kameshwar Rao,Mahendra Narain

Singh,Pankaj Mishra,S.K. Srivastava,S.P. Lal,Sanjay Kumar Singh,

Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Vinod Kumar Singh

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

This is a defendant's second appeal, arising out of a

preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition.

2.

Original Suit No. 22 of 1976 was instituted by Shaukat Ali,

arraying Nasiban Bibi as defendant no.1 and Rasheed @ Kallu,

Shaukat Ali's son as the second defendant. Jogendra Nath @

Lahiri and Lallu were arrayed as defendant nos. 3 and 4 to the

suit and Jamir Ahmad @ Jhamman Driver as the fifth

defendant.

3.

Shaukat Ali sought partition of the four houses, shown in

Schedule A to the plaint. The relief of partition is confined to

Shaukat Ali, defendant nos. 1 and 2. The other three

defendants have been impleaded for reasons that shall be

shortly indicated. The four houses set out in Schedule A to the

plaint shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the suit property’.

4.

The plaintiff pleaded a pedigree to indicate the

relationship between himself and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The

said pedigree, set out in Paragraph No.1 of the plaint, is

detailed below:

2

Shakuran = Khoob Ali = Smt. Niranjani Bibi

Nasiban Bashiran

(Daughter) (Daughter)

Bashiran = Shaukat Ali

Rasheed @ Kallu

5.

The plaintiff asserted a case that the suit property,

comprising four houses together with a courtyard, is located at

Town Area Robertsganj, District Mirzapur (now District

Sonbhadra). The late Khoob Ali was the owner in possession of

the suit property until his demise. After his death, his widow

Smt. Niranjani Bibi was recorded in the Municipal Records as

the owner. After Niranjani's demise, the names of Smt.

Shakuran, the other widow of Khoob Ali, besides that of his

daughters, Nasiban and Bashiran were recorded. It is asserted

that Shakuran, Smt. Nasiban and Smt. Bashiran – all three

were recorded as owners in possession of the suit property

after Smt. Niranjani. Smt. Bashiran passed away leaving behind

her, her husband Shaukat Ali, the plaintiff and son Rasheed,

defendant no.2, as heirs and LRs, entitled to inherit.

6.

It is the plaintiff's case that by succession, he and

defendant no.2, the plaintiff's son, together have a half share in

the suit property, whereas defendant no.1, Smt. Nasiban has

the other half. Specifying the shares further, it is the plaintiff's

case that a one-fourth share is held by him, one half by

defendant no.1 and the remainder one-fourth by defendant

3

no.2, and all parties are in possession of the suit property, in

accordance with their shares. It is the plaintiff's case that

defendant no.1, Nasiban, out of the houses, comprising the suit

property, has sold off two, all by herself, vide registered sale

deeds dated 25.01.1969 and 29.11.1971, in favour of Jogendra

Nath @ Lahiri and Lallu, defendant nos. 3 and 4 to the suit, in

that order.

7.

It is also the plaintiff's case that the vendees have been

put in possession of the two houses, sold to them through the

sale deeds aforesaid by defendant no.1, and these two houses

are detailed in Schedule B to the plaint. It is asserted by the

plaintiff that notwithstanding the execution of the two sale deeds

under reference by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.

3 and 4, the two houses sold by defendant no. 1 exclusively,

are also owned by the plaintiff and defendant no.2 together, to

the extent of a half share, or a one-fourth share for each of

them. The plaintiff