Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

appellanfs counsel that separate suit for ejactment has to be not hold water. Having regard to the nattzre ef the when a suit was filed for partition and ' right cmeated in favour offltc dcfendanm beittga béitttilar V' the larger interest in claiming file s1tit'Vpa:1iti"o11.. and the question at" maintainvmgza sepgmmh ejectrnmt not arise am there is no exmr cmnrniuéd 'decreeing the wk and accordingty, sought Vt t Having parties, the point that would arise fits trial court is justified in order to hand over possession by holdingittixgtuiryrt and also to hold separate enquiry to mesrte profits?' 'date of institution ef the suit till delivery of whgtlmer com: Qught to have held that the plaintiffs suit for ejectment having regard to the fact there in favenr ef the predeoesscx of the defendant by the ..__'pmimsgoafiammsxormepmurrs; whatordcr. 'A .-__1: igmaaieputed fact that the pxaimm have got U3" share in the in question. The lease orimnhally was executed dating June 1969 for W also determinecl New remains the suit for partition. In the the parties were restored to the original position after and what remains to be determined and iaexgitied is_ii1e' 'sfim_Vin_£ne~ 7 joint property by metes and bounds and to 4' ihat, it is not for the plaintifis to splii :14; "to est:;::i;s;:§;e , take poseessim of the property in course, as rightly arguw by the is' %a m'i} for partition and pomessinm vufherein the rig! of the plaintiffs to seek ejectment suit or seekktg possession in V In the mus} course, even in a suit being any relationship of have prefexred to file a suit for ejeetment. leese though the tenant continued to be in V. '_ but also as a cewowner, in such circmnstance, the merge's vwyifla the ownership. Then rightly the piaintitfs have flied A pariah" 'V possession.