Delhi District Court
Delhi vs Sh. Jai Ram Sharma on 10 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS SWATI KATIYAR CIVIL JUDGE III TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
SUIT NO. 203/06
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.11.2003
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 22.12.2011
DATE OF DISPOSAL : 10.01.2012
1 SH. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O LATE SH. RAM KISHORE SHARMA
2 SMT. RAMPATI
W/O LATE SH. RAM KISHORE SHARMA
BOTH RESIDENCE OF
HOUSE NO. 75/4, PANA UDHYAN
VISHWAKARMA ROAD, MATA WALI GALI
NARELA ...... PLAINTIFFS
VS
SH. JAI RAM SHARMA
S/O LATE SH. MANGE RAM
R/O HOUSE NO. 75/4, PANA UDHYAN
VISHWAKARMA ROAD, MATA WALI GALI
NARELA, DELHI
..... DEFENDANT
-:1:-
SUIT FOR PARTITION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and injunction stating that his father Sh. Ram Kishore, defendant and Sh. Jai Chand were real brothers out of whom father of plaintiff and Sh. Jai Chand have expired. It is submitted that all the three brothers named above had purchased a residential house consisting of three rooms towards northern side and open space towards southern side measuring 870 sq yds bearing no. 75/4 situated at Panna Udhyan, Vishvakarma Road, Matawali Gali, Narela, Delhi-40 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is submitted that the aforesaid property was purchased jointly by the three brothers about more than 30 years ago and out of the total area, defendant has occupied land measuring 730 sq yds while plaintiffs are in possession of only 270 sq yds. It is submitted that on the spot the land is around 1000 sq yds and the excess land is also under the possession of the defendant.
2. Plaintiffs further submit that Sh. Ram Kishore had expired leaving behind plaintiff No. 1 &2 and his other two daughters as legal heirs. It is submitted that the consideration amount for the purchase of the suit property was given by all the three brothers as per their share. It is submitted that till date no partition by metes and bounds has taken place of the suit property among the brothers.
3. Plaintiffs further state that the predecessor of the plaintiffs started residing at the back side towards northern in the already built up houses while Sh. Jai Chand and defendant started residing towards southern side. It is submitted that about four years ago Sh. Jai Chand handed over his share in the joint -:2:- property to the defendant and started residing at Najafgarh, New Delhi. Plaintiffs submit that they have been informed that defendant has purchased the share of Sh. Jai Chand during his life time. It is submitted that plaintiffs have been asking the defendant to partition the suit property but defendant has been saying that whenever he would construct his house, 1/3rd portion for the share of the plaintiffs shall be left towards the northern side. It is submitted that since the predecessor of the plaintiffs has expired about 20 years back, therefore, the plaintiffs have been depending upon the assurances of the defendant.
4. It is submitted that about five months back, the defendant started construction towards extreme south and at that time also he was asked to partition the property but the defendant again said that the portion of the plaintiffs towards the northern side shall be left. It is further submitted that in September, 2003, the defendant started construction towards northern side near the portion of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs again asked for partition but defendant avoided the same. It is submitted that while raising construction on the land in dispute, defendant demolished the wall towards the western side and raised a wall thereby blocking the passage of the plaintiffs.
5. Plaintiffs further state that earlier their gate used to open towards open space of the plot in dispute having free ingress and exit at the main road but now the defendant has left only 7 x 6 ft space in front of the gate of the plaintiffs and had put his gate as well, thereby making the entry of the plaintiffs difficult. It is submitted that defendant has also raised a wall in front of the gate of the plaintiff's house so as to compel the plaintiffs to leave their demand of partition of the entire property.
6. Plaintiffs further submit that the defendant has made 10 gates in all thereby -:3:- blocking the free passage not only for the plaintiffs but for the other neighbourhood areas as well. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have a legal right to impose the partition of the joint property and defendant has no right to raise construction over the same. It is submitted that the title deed of the suit property is also with the defendant. Thus, feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying that the suit property be partitioned and the defendant be restrained from making any construction over the suit property beyond his share. It is further prayed that defendant be directed to remove the wall raised by him in front of the gate of the plaintiff's entry gate.
7. Per contra, defendant submits that the suit is not maintainable as the suit property already stands partitioned since 34 years. It is submitted that the suit property was first partitioned just after its purchase in the year 1965 and thereafter it was re-partitioned in the year 1975 on the request of Sh. Ram Kishore. It is submitted that the partition of 1975 was reduced in writing in the year 1988 entered into between the defendant, plaintiff No. 2 and late Sh. Jai Chand. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts in respect of the partition which had taken place in the year 1975. It is submitted that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and thus liable to be dismissed.
8. Defendant further denies that the suit property was purchased by all the three brothers. It is submitted that the defendant had made the payment of whole of the sale and purchase consideration of Rs. 8000/- of vacant plot of khasra No. 294/12 measuing 870 sq yds situated within the Revenue Estate of Village of Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi. It is stated that being the elder brother of late Sh. Jai Chand and late Sh. Ram Kishore, the defendant got the sale deed registered in the name of all the three brothers. It is submitted that the plot was purchased about 44 years back and plaintiffs are in occupation and -:4:- possession of their partitioned share measuring 290 sq yds which is also apparent from the report of Local Commissioner appointed in this matter. It is submitted that under the partition, the portion now under the occupation of the plaintiffs was allotted to the defendant where the defendant raised construction of three rooms, veranda, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. It is stated that the share of Sh. Ram Kishore to the extent of 1/3rd was given on the southern side of the share of the defendant and the remaining 1/3 rd share on the extreme south was given to Sh. Jai Chand.
9. Defendant submits that neither Sh. Ram Kishore nor Sh. Jai Chand raised any construction on their respective portions but had occupied and taken possession of their respective shares. It is submitted that in the year 1975 it was late Sh. Ram Kishore who along with common relatives approached the defendant and their mother with a request for re-partitioning of the suit property with a further request that the share allotted to the defendant in the partition of 1965 be allotted to him as he was financially weak and not in a position to raise any construction.
10. Defendant submits that on the request of late Sh. Ram Kishore, the suit property was again partitioned in the year 1975 and thereafter the defendant raised construction on his portion for his residence. It is submitted that Sh. Jai Chand also raised construction on the portion allotted to him and since then the parties have been residing in their respective portions. It is submitted that the partition of 1975 was reduced in writing in the year 1988. It is denied that the defendant had blocked any passage of the plaintiff or that any cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff. On these counts, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.
-:5:-11. Replication was filed denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the plaint. On completion of pleadings, issues were framed firstly on 18.10.2004 but thereafter, the plaint was amended vide order dated 17.12.2004 and issues were again framed on 25.02.2005 as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction? OPP
6. Relief.
12. In evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered site plan as Ex.
PW-1/1. Sh. Ram Kishan was examined as PW-2. On behalf of defendants, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma was examined as DW-1, defendant as DW-2 who tendered memorandum of partition as Ex. DW-2/1. Sh. Nar Singh Dass, witness to Ex. DW-2/1 was examined as DW-3.
13. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. V.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. N.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully and my issuewise finding on each of the issues is as follows:
Issue no.2: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. Defendant states that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ram Kishore and Late Sh. Jai Chand have not been made a party to the suit.-:6:-
Plaintiffs on the other hand have denied that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
A perusal of the record shows that the present suit is a suit for partition. Admittedly, the property was in the name of all the three brothers i.e. Late Sh. Ram Kishore, Late Sh. Jai Chand and Sh. Jai Ram Sharma (defendant). Plaintiffs are legal representatives of Late Sh. Ram Kishore and Sh. Jai Ram has been impleaded as a defendant in person. However, no legal representative of Late Sh. Jai Chand including DW1 (son of Late Sh. Jai Chand) has been made a party to the present suit. As per plaintiffs, the suit property has not been partitioned till date but belonged jointly to all the three brothers. Thus, when the suit property as per the plaintiffs is undivided as on date, then the share of the property would also fall upon the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Chand.
Even if the averments raised by the plaintiffs to the effect that Late Sh. Jai Chand had handed over his share to defendant is taken to be correct, still since no part of the share of late Sh. Jai Chand was handed over to the plaintiffs so the entire property, if divided, would be divided in 3 equal shares and the same would require the presence of legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Chand as well. However, since the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Chand have not been impleaded as a party to the present suit, therefore, the suit is indeed bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The issue accordingly stands decided against the plaintiffs.
-:7:-Issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts? OPD and Issue no.3: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition? OPP The issues being interconnected are taken up together for disposal. The case of the plaintiffs is that Late Sh. Ram Kishore, Late Sh. Jai Chand and Sh. Jai Ram Sharma had jointly purchased the suit property about 30 years ago from the date of filing the suit and the same has not been partitioned till date. It is submitted that out of total area, defendant has occupied 730 sq. yds. while plaintiffs are in possession of only 270 sq. yds.
Defendant on the other hand submits that the suit property was purchased in the year 1965 by him but being elder brother, the documents were executed in the name of all the three brothers. Defendant further submits that at the behest of Late Sh. Ram Kishore, the property was re-partitioned in 1975 and the factum of partition was reduced into writing in the year 1988 vide memorandum of partition Ex. DW2/1 since the parties wanted to sell their respective shares.
Plaintiffs have denied this memorandum of partition and submit that no partition of the suit property has ever taken place.
A perusal of memorandum of partition Ex. DW2/1 shows that the same is dated 27.04.1988 and has been entered into between plaintiff no.2, defendant and Late Sh. Jai Chand and was witnessed by two witnesses. Ex. DW2/1 states that the same is being entered into to put on record oral partition effected between defendant, Sh. Jai Chand and plaintiff no.2 in order to avoid -:8:- any misunderstanding at any time. Ex. DW2/1 further states that Sh. Jai Ram Sharma, Jai Chand Sharma and Sh. Ram Kishore had purchased a piece of land measuring 870 sq yds and the documents in respect of the same were registered on 10.08.1965. Ex. DW2/1 states that the property is to be divided in three equal shares in accordance with the map attached to the memorandum of partition. The document has been witnessed by two persons and one of the witness is Sh. Nar Singh Dass i.e. DW3. Ex. DW2/1 bears signature on each page of defendant, Sh. Jai Chand and plaintiff no.2 (signatures of plaintiff no.2 have been denied by plaintiff no.1 during his cross examination).
DW3 in his examination deposed that he was working in Reserve Bank of India where Late Sh. Jai Chand and plaintiff no.2 were also working. DW3 deposed that he had witnessed Ex. DW2/1 on 27.04.1988 when the same was executed between Sh. Jai Ram Sharma, Sh. Jai Chand and Smt. Rampati in respect of property bearing no. 75/4, Narela, Delhi-40. DW3 deposed that the memorandum of partition was read over and explained to Sh. Jai Ram Sharma, Sh. Jai Chand and Smt. Rampati in his presence and in the presence of other witnesses who accepted the same as correct, final and binding upon the three persons and was witnessed by DW1 after the same was signed by Sh. Jai Ram Sharma, Sh. Jai Chand and Smt. Rampati.
In his cross examination, DW3 deposed that, "I have no knowledge as to whether any partition had taken place between the above said persons prior to 27.04.1988. I accompanied on the request of Jai Chand and Rampati who were my assistants to the New Delhi Courts to witness the documents of partition Ex. DW2/1. I know Sh. Jai Ram Sharma but not personally. I know Sh. Jai Ram Sharma since he is the brother of Jai Chand and Ram Kishore. I cannot say as to who had purchased the documents Ex. DW2/1. I cannot say -:9:- whether there was any site plan with the document Ex. DW2/1 but there was one paper on which lines were made by hand. That paper was seen by me. I cannot locate the said documents in the file..... The said paper was prepared towards partition of the property between the persons stated above. I do not know and I cannot recall whether the property has been partitioned in terms of that paper on which lines were made by hand showing the partition. The document Ex. DW2/1 was not read over to any person but we were verbally told that there had been a partition. I cannot admit or deny whether Smt. Ramwati was not having any knowledge of English language or that the document Ex. DW2/1 was not read over and explained to her. vol. a copy was given to Smt. Rampati..... I can identify the signatures of Jai Ram Sharma, Jai Chand Sharma and Rampati on Ex. DW2/1 which are marked at point X, Y and Z. I cannot identify the signatures at point W. I cannot recall the exact number of persons who were present at the time Ex. DW2/1 was executed since 30-40 years have already passed since then. It is wrong to suggest that the signatures of Smt. Rampati and Sh. Jai Chand Sharma are forged and fabricated or that the same were not made in my presence.......vol. I did not even knew that the I had signed on Ex. DW2/1. It was Jai Ram Sharma who came to me and had shown me the photocopy of Ex. DW2/1 when I recall having signed the same. It is correct that I had come today at the instance of defendant. It is wrong to suggest that Ex. DW2/1 was never executed or is forged and fabricated...."
Thus, the deposition of DW3 with regard to execution of Ex. DW2/1 has been consistent and nothing material could be culled out in his cross examination. DW3 established that Ex. DW2/1 was signed in his presence by defendant, Late Sh. Jai Chand and plaintiff no.2. Now, Late Sh. Jai Chand has already died and thus, could not have come forward for admitting or denying his signatures on Ex. DW2/1 but it is inexplicable as to why plaintiff no.2 has also -:10:- not come forward for admitting or denying her signatures on Ex. DW2/1. Denial made by plaintiff no.1 in his cross examination qua the signature of plaintiff no. 2 on Ex. DW2/1 is irrelevant since as on date, plaintiff no.2 is alive and ought to have entered into witness box to admit/ deny her signatures on Ex. DW2/1. Since no such denial has been made by plaintiff no.2 with regard to signatures on Ex. DW2/1, therefore inference can be drawn against her.
DW-3 has also deposed in his cross examination about a paper with lines drawn on it on the basis of which partition was done and the same by inference can be referred to map mentioned in the memorandum of partition. Thus, the execution of Ex.DW2/1 has been duly proved by DW-3.
Coming to the testimony of other witnesses, DW1 i.e. son of Late Sh. Jai Chand deposed in his cross examination that the land in question is in the names of defendant, his father Late Sh. Jai Chand and uncle Late Sh. Ram Kishore. DW1 deposed that his mother had told him the fact that the house in Narela i.e. in the suit property was got constructed by his father in the year 1975 and said property has been sold to defendant. DW1 deposed that their house was towards southern side but the same has not been depicted in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. DW1 admitted that the partition of 1975 and 1988 as stated in his affidavit did not take place in his presence but denied the suggestion that the property has not been partitioned till date.
DW2 in his cross examination recorded on 10.08.2011 deposed that the suit property was purchased in 1965 and sale deed was executed in his name as well as in the name of his other two brothers. DW2 admitted that he alongwith his other brothers had equal share in the suit property. DW2 deposed that the property was divided in three equal portion measuring 290 sq. yds. each.
-:11:-DW2 in his further cross examination recorded on 16.08.2011 deposed, "It is correct that the suit property was purchased in the year 1965 by all the three brothers for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-... I am the eldest among the brothers. Sh. Jai Chand and Sh. Ram Kishore were doing service in the year 1965. Jai Chand was doing service with DTC and Ram Kishore with SBI. It is correct that Sh. Jai Chand and Ram Kishore were in Govt. service. The monthly pay of Sh. Jai Chand as well as Sh. Ram Kishore was around Rs. 100/- to Rs. 125/-. It is correct that Sh. Jai Chand as well as Sh. Ram Kishore were maintaining their respective families. In 1965 I was working as a Teacher in Govt. school at Narela as TGT. My monthly income was around Rs. 300/-. No bank account was maintained by me in the 1965. It is correct that sale consideration amount of Rs. 8000/- was equal to the total of my monthly pay of about 2.5 years. (vol. I was in Govt. service since 1953 and at the time when the plot was purchased in the year 1965 I had saved enough for purchasing the suit property). It is correct that I have not filed any document to show that I had paid the entire amount of Rs. 8000/- towards the sale consideration........It is correct that the agreement dated 20.05.1982 was executed between me and my other brothers. I had given the agreement dt. 20.05.1982 to my counsel and the photocopy of the same is Mark X-1.......It is wrong to suggest that the suit property was not partitioned in the year 1965. The partition of the year 1965 was an oral partition and no documents whatsoever were executed qua the same. The partition mentioned at para 5 of my affidavit refers to the partition of 1965.......... The necessity for repartition arose in the year 1975 due to the reason that Ram Kishore Sharma was not capable enough for constructing premises for his own use and under the pressure of the common relative the suit property was repartitioned in the year 1975. It is wrong to suggest that the suit property was not repartitioned in the year 1975 as stated above. It is correct that by the year 1975 Sh. Ram Kishore had completed around 14 years of service. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ram Kishore was capable of -:12:- constructing his own property and he had never approached me for repartition of the suit property. The expenses incurred on raising construction in the year 1965 as mentioned in para 5 of my affidavit was around Rs. 6000/-........ The construction was ordinary in nature and no special flooring of marble was done........It is correct that partition of 1975 took place when all the brothers were alive but it was reduced into writing on 27.04.1988 vide document Ex. DW-2/1 when one of my brother Ram Kishore Sharma had already expired. It is correct that in Ex. DW-2/1 it has been mentioned that all the three brothers had purchased the suit property (Vol. The name of the other brothers were incorporated since they were my younger brother). There was no feeling of ill will between me and the family of Sh. Ram Kishore Sharma either in the year 1975 or in the year 1988. It is wrong to suggest that since my brothers were seeking partition from me, therefore, my relations with my brothers were not cordial. The document Ex. DW-2/1 was executed in the year 1988 since Sh. Jai Chand and Ram Kishore wanted to sell their respective shares. I can not orally recall as to whether the partition of 1975 has been mentioned in Ex. DW-2/1. The stamp paper on which Ex. DW-2/1 has been executed was purchased by me from the Parliament Street. Jai Chand as well as the mother of the plaintiff had also accompanied while purchasing the abovesaid stamp paper. It is wrong to suggest that the signature of Smt. Rampati i.e plaintiff No. 2 have been forged and fabricated on Ex. DW-2/1. It is wrong to suggest that Ex. DW-2/1 is a forged and fabricated document and no such document was ever executed between me, Jai Chand and Plaintiff No. 2. It is wrong to suggest that Ex. DW-2/1 was executed so as to take advantage of the death of my brother Sh. Ram Kishore......The site plan Ex. PW-1/1 is not correct and does not depict the suit property accurately.........".
Thus the deposition of DW2 with regard to execution of Ex.DW2/1 and reasons for its execution has also been consistent and DW-2 has reiterated that the -:13:- document Ex. DW2/1 was executed by him, plaintiff No. 2 and late Sh. Jai Chand. DW2 in his cross examination has confirmed and reiterated his examination-in- chief and no material contradiction could be culled out by the plaintiffs in the cross examination of defendant.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the map which has been referred to in Ex. DW2/1 has not been brought in evidence by the defendant and thus, the memorandum of partition is of no relevance in the present suit. Though, the map has not been brought in evidence by the defendant but a perusal of the record shows that a photocopy of memorandum of partition was filed by defendant on record along with copy of a map on 01.11.2011. Furthermore, the deposition of DW3 with regard to execution of Ex. DW2/1 alongwith a paper with lines drawn on it cannot be lost sight of.
Further, ld counsel for plaintiff had confronted the defendant with an agreement dt. 20.05.1982 during the cross examination which has been marked as Mark X1. Mark X1 also mentions that the suit property has been purchased by defendant but being the eldest, he had got incorporated the name of all the three brothers in the documents. Mark X1 further mentions that all the three brothers shall use their respective portions only for residential purposes. This mention of use of respective portions by the three brothers in Mark X1 also leads to the inference that the property had been partitioned by the three brothers amongst themselves and they were enjoying their respective portions.
Other facts of the case which gives rise to an inference that the suit property has already been partitioned are that the plaintiffs had admitted their possession over the northern side portion of the suit property. As per the defendant during the partition, plaintiffs were given the northern side portion for their residence and defendant and Sh. Jai Chand were in the southern portion.
-:14:-PW1 in his cross examination admits that the house of Jai Chand was constructed on the southern side of the house of Jai Ram. PW2 in his cross examination deposed that he had visited the house of the plaintiff and in Ex. PW1/1 the share of the defendant is in the middle followed by the share of Jai Chand. Now, if the Site Plan Ex. PW1/1 is perused, the same also shows the portion of plaintiffs in northern side. The report of Local Commissioner dt. 24.11.2003 also shows the house of the plaintiffs towards the northern side. Thus, the parties have been residing in their respective portions as determined during the partition alleged by the defendant. Had it not been so, then there was no reason as to why the plaintiffs should have confined their possession only to northern portion of the entire suit property.
It is also inexplicable as to how the plaintiffs are in possession of only 270 sq. yds. of the suit property as alleged by them which is roughly 1/3rd share of the suit property. Why the plaintiffs are not in possession of any sq. yds. less or more but 270 sq. yds if the property is not partitioned is what remains unexplained.
Furthermore, plaintiffs repeatedly say throughout the pleadings and in the evidence that defendant has raised construction over and above his share and has blocked the gate of the plaintiff's house. But if the suit property is not partitioned then no question arises of the defendant either blocking "plaintiff's house" or raising construction "over and above" his share in the suit property.
Furthermore, plaintiff no.1 / PW1 in his cross examination stated his date of birth as 31.05.1969 which means that plaintiff no.1 was not even born when the suit property was purchased in the year 1965 and even in 1975, plaintiff no. 1 would have been of very tender age to know anything about the alleged partition. It was plaintiff no.2 who could have better deposed or rebutted the -:15:- factum of partition alleged by the defendant or deposed about her signatures on Ex. DW2/1 but plaintiff no.2 has not entered into witness box to rebut the claim of the defendant that the suit property has already been partitioned which calls for inference to be drawn against the plaintiffs.
These are gaping lacunas in the case of the plaintiffs which remain unexplained. Accordingly, on balance of convenience, the issues are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no.4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction? OPP and Issue no.5: Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction? OPP The onus of proving these issues was upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiff had relied upon only one document i.e. the site plan Ex. PW1/1 to prove their case. However, the site plan itself has not been proved in evidence.
Defendant had categorically denied the site plan in his cross examination. PW1 as well in his cross examination states, "It is correct that the rooms and floors constructed by Jai Ram have not been shown in site plan. It is correct that Ex. PW1/1 was got prepared by me. It is also correct that the draftsman who prepared the site plan on my instructions and the measurements were provided by me......." Thus, PW1 admits that the rooms constructed by defendant in the suit property are not depicted in the site plan which means that the site plan is incomplete and an incomplete site plan is of no use in determining the present reliefs.
-:16:-Further, the draftsman who prepared the site plan has not been examined to prove the same in evidence. Accordingly, the site plan Ex. PW1/1 has not been duly proved in evidence and cannot be considered for determining the issues.
Further, since the relief of partition has already been declined to the plaintiffs, the present reliefs of injunction being connected to the relief of partition cannot be granted as well.
The issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no.6: Relief.
In view of the observations made under the preceding issues, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court today i.e. 10.01.2012 (Swati Katiyar) CJ (West)III/Delhi 10.01.2012 -:17:-