Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The Plaintiff stated in his evidence affidavit that he resided in one room on the first floor with shared facilities and required more space due to his growing children. He stated that despite requests, the other two parties i.e., Defendants, who occupied the entire property, refuse to divide it equally. The deponent also stated that he sent a notice on 13th August, 2015 seeking partition, which was ignored, and he was threatened with eviction. He then stated to have filed a police complaint but received no action. Consequently, the deponent filed the present suit seeking partition of the 200 sq. yds property into equal shares and claiming damages and mesne profits of Rs.3,60,000 for the last three years and continuing until an equitable partition is achieved.

19. In summary, the Plaintiff claims that the suit property was jointly purchased and presented evidence to support this, seeking an equitable partition, damages, and mesne profits due to the Defendants' refusal to divide the property. The Plaintiff asserts that despite living in a single room and requesting a fair division, he was met with threats and inaction, prompting the suit. Conversely, Defendant No.1, Raj Mahatim Singh, argues that he independently acquired and developed the property through his efforts, supported by various documents including a family settlement deed from 1999 that allegedly already partitioned the property. He asserts that the Plaintiff had no financial involvement and was ousted from a family business due to dishonest actions, claiming the suit is an abuse of the legal process.

20. The conflict between the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's narratives centres on the equitable partition of the property and the Plaintiff's right to claim damages and mesne profits. While the Plaintiff seeks a court-ordered division and compensation, the Defendant argues that such claims are baseless given the prior settlement and the Plaintiff's lack of financial contribution.