Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one Moti Ram had three sons, namely, Parmanand, Chuni Lal and Dhani Ram. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. Parmanand in the year 1987, filed a suit for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds as mentioned above against his two brothers, namely, Chuni Lal (defendant No.1) and Dhani Ram (defendant No.2), thereby pleading that the house was built by their father and after the death of their father, they had been in the possession of the suit house and residing there. It was further stated that the parties got separated 15 years ago and had been living in three separate portions of the house, which was a temporary arrangement and all the three brothers occupied the rooms according to their needs at that time without there being any formal partition or arrangement in the family. It was also pleaded by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. plaintiff therein that he was the worst sufferer under the above mentioned arrangement, as he was putting up along with his family in a small and invaluable portion of the house, whereas the defendants had been in occupation of more valuable and bigger portion than that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed to have spent Rs. 16,000/- for repair and improvement of two rooms and likewise the defendant No. 1 also constructed one room and one store.

17. DW 1-Prem Chand stated that the parties had been residing separately for the last 25-30 years and they had partitioned the suit property amongst themselves in the year 1987. He had been to the house of the parties to settle the dispute about the passage. Sain Dass, Dwarka Nath and one more person went along with him to the house of the parties. It was settled that the plaintiff would dismantle his water tank constructed 4 feet ahead of Deodi which was joint between the parties. During cross-examination, he stated that no partition had taken place among the brothers in his presence and he could not say whether the brothers were living in separate portions as per their requirements. The passage was common between Dhani Ram and Parmanand. As per his estimate Chuni Lal was having more property in his possession than that of the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff.

23. DW 7- Charan Ji Lal stated that when the defendants arrived from Doda they took separate residence. Shakti Prakash was living as a tenant adjacent to Deodi. When the defendants returned to Udhampur, their mother had expired. The room in which Shakti used to live earlier was given to the defendant Dhani Ram. Chuni Lal started living in the back portion of the house. Parmanand raised one more story on the ground floor. Chuni Lal also constructed pacca rooms in place of kacha room. All the brothers raised construction out of their own funds and he had no knowledge about the family partition. During cross- examination, he stated the suit house was ancestral property of the parties.