A co-owner can seek possession of a specific portion of property based on a family arrangement, even without a formal partition, as established by evidence of ownership and constructive possession.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.10.2015, passed in Civil Suit No.65/2016, by the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby, the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendants/appellants has been decreed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES

2. The parties are being referred through their original description in the Civil Suit.The suit was mainly defended by Smt.Amrit Pal Kaur (hereinafter „defendant‟). However, for the sake of convenience, the position of the parties is represented in the following tabular format:-

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed

3. The family chart depicting the relationship between the parties that remained undisputed before the Trial Court is extracted as under:-

Jai Singh / Smt. Manjeet Kaur Expired n 06.05.1999 / Expire on 01.02.1983 Sardar Late Surender Harcharan Singh Sardar Ujjagar Late Rajender Smt. Ranjit Singh Josh Singh Singh Kaur (Husband of (Plaintiff) Def. no. 1) (PW2) (Expired in

1995-96)

Amrit Pal Kaur(widow of Late Surender Singh) Def. no.

1 Harpreet Simar Preet Kaur Kaur (Def. no. (Def. no. 3)

2)

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The facts of the case exhibit that the plaintiff had instituted a Civil Suit against the defendant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter ‘Act’), however, vide order dated 27.05.2009, the same was allowed to be converted into an ordinary suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction for the portion Marked Red in the annexed site plan of the suit property bearing no. C-1/10, Ashok Vihar Phase-II, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter ‘suit property’). The plaintiff had also sought damages against the defendant to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- with effect from 20.03.2004 till the date of filing Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIAof the application for amendment and pendente lite damag Be ys :P Uat R t Uh Se H Ara INte D RA of Rs.20,000/- per month till the date on which the defendant hands over the possession of the front portion Marked Red of the suit property.

5. The plaintiff asserted that the suit property measuring 332.614 sq. meters was purchased by him on 27.11.1972 and out of love and affection, he also got the name of his immediate younger brother, Sardar Surender Singh (now deceased), recorded as a co-lessee in the suit property. The plaintiff further asserted that the suit property was constructed in the year 1975-1976 and on completion of the construction work, the plaintiff along with all the family members, moved into the property. It was asserted that initially, they all lived together, but gradually everyone moved out of the said property to their respective residences. It is the case of the plaintiff that possession of the respective parts was held by the family members in accordance with the site plan (Ex. PW-1/2) but, the defendant prevented them from entering the premises of the suit property, giving rise to the agitated cause of action.

6. The defendant, filed her written statement denying the contents of the plaint and opposed the same on multiple grounds. According to them, neither the plaintiff nor any of his family members ever resided or occupied any specific portion of the suit property and since the beginning, he has resided at 1206/7, Shora Kothi, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 with his family, before subsequently shifting to Malkaganj.

7. It is the case of the defendant that Sardar Surender Singh (now deceased) was engaged in the business of finance with his father and was earning handsomely and made equal contributions tow