S.B. Civil First Appeal No.98/1982

Smt. Chanan Rani vs. Sardar Nanak Singh & Ors.

[1]

In the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur

Bench, Jaipur

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.98/1982

Smt. Chanan Rani-Appellant

Versus

Sardar Nanak Singh & Ors.-Respondents

Date of Judgment::11.02.2013

Mr. S. Kasliwal Senior Advocate with

Mr. R.N. Vijay, for appellant.

Mr. Bihari Lal Agarwal with

Mr. Amit Gupta, for respondents.

Judgment

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Reportable

1.

The appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal

under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC

challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.07.1982

passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City,

Court No.7 (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”)

in Civil Suit No.86/76 [64/80], so far as the findings

recorded by the trial court relating to the issue Nos.1,

2 & 4 are concerned. The respondents-defendants

have filed their cross-objections under Order XLI Rule

22 of CPC in the appeal challenging the said decree, so

far as the findings relating to the issue Nos.3, 5 & 7

are concerned.

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.98/1982

Smt. Chanan Rani vs. Sardar Nanak Singh & Ors.

[2]

2.

The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit against

the respondents-defendants seeking partition and her

1/8^th share in the immovable properties belonging to

the HUF including the house bearing No.1182 situated

at Natanion Ki Gali, Chora Rasta, Jaipur, and sought

permanent injunction in respect of the movable

properties described in the Schedules K & Kh annexed

to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint interalia that

Late Shri Niranjan Singh, husband of the appellant-

plaintiff, was the eldest son of the defendant No.1

Sardar Nanak Singh. The said Niranjan Singh expired

on 18.02.1976 at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff,

before the partition i.e. 1947, the whole family of the

defendants including Shri Niranjan Singh were staying

at Multan (Pakistan), where they had some properties

belonging to the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) of

which the defendant No.1 was the ‘karta’. After the

partition, the whole family came to India leaving their

properties in Pakistan, for which the defendant No.1

was given the compensation to the tune of about

Rs.35,000/- under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act

1950. The defendant No.1 thereafter purchased the

residential house bearing No.1182 at the Natanion Ki

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.98/1982

Smt. Chanan Rani vs. Sardar Nanak Singh & Ors.

[3]

Gali, Jaipur and other properties from the said amount

of compensation received by him as the karta of HUF.

It was further case of the plaintiff that initially the said

house No.1182 was occupied by the tenants, and

therefore the family of defendant No.1 was staying in

a rented premises, and after sometime part of the said

house having been vacated, the plaintiff and her

husband Niranjan Singh had started staying over

there. Thereafter, the remaining part having been

vacated by the tenants, the defendants had also come

to stay in the said house. It was also case of the

plaintiff that during the said period, her husband

Niranjan Singh was working in the Sachivalaya, Jaipur

and had his own independent income. On the death of

her husband Niranjan Singh on 18.02.1976, the

defendants started misbehaving with the plaintiff and

tried to take possession of the movable properties

purchased by the plaintiff and her husband from their

own income. The defendant No.1 also refused to part

with the amount of insurance policy, in which he was

mentioned as nominee. According to the plaintiff, the

said house bearing No.1182 and other immovable

properties having been purchased from the nucleus of

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.98/1982

Smt. Chanan Rani vs. Sardar Nanak Singh & Ors.

[4]

the HUF, the plaintiff had 1/8th share in the said

properties. Hence the said suit, claiming her share in

the i