MT. SODHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. L. KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Mt. Sodhan And Another
L. Khushi Ram And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Harnam Singh, J. -
(1.) MEHTA Khushi Ram plaintiff -respondent instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on 17th March 1916 for possession of the suit property alleging that be and his brother Mehta Mohan Lal deceased formed a joint Hindu family and that the house in suit had been purchased out of the joint Hindu family funds. He, further alleged that on the death of Mehta Mohan Lal on 14th March he had become sole owner of the suit property by survivorship. The plaintiff then alleged that a portion of the house had been used by the plaintiff for his residence and the other portion by the widow of Mehta Mohan Lal, adding that for some time Shrimati Sodhan widow of Mehta Mohan Lal deceased and her two daughters were joint in mess with him, but later on they started separate mess although the expenses of that mess were borne by the joint Hindu family. In 1941, the relations between the plaintiff and Shrimati Sodhan defendant, however, became attained with the result that Shrimati Sodhan brought a criminal complaint under S. 420, Penal Code, against Mehta Khushi Ram and then on 14th March, she brought a complaint under S. 107 read with S. 151, Criminal P. C., against the plaintiff. In the security proceedings, Mehta Khushi Ram was arrested. He then shifted to the adjoining house and then Shrimati Sodhan took forcible possession of that part of the house which had been in possession of the plaintiff. Upon these allegations the plaintiff claimed possession of the house in suit excepting the portion shown black in the plan, Ex. P -32.
(2.) SHRIMATI Sodhan, Sushila and Santosh, two unmarried daughters of Mehta Mohan Lal, resisted the suit pleading that though the property in suit was purchased jointly, yet Mehta Khushi Ram and Mehta Mohan Lal did not form a joint Hindu family at that time. In any case the defendants pleaded that ever since the purchase of the house, defendant 1 had been living in the house and that the house in dispute was insufficient for the residence and maintenance of the defendants. Before the issues were framed the parties were examined. At that stage counsel for the plaintiff stated:
The plaintiff and his brother L. Mohan Lal were members of joint family. The property in dispute is a joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff was in actual possession of the rooms for which he sues. He concede that in case his allegations about the possession are incorrect, he wilt only be entitled to joint possession of the whole property.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issue was framed:
(1) Can the question of maintenance and residence be decided in this case?
(3.) NOW , the preliminary issue was decided against the defendants on 28th June 1945. After deciding the preliminary issue the trial Court framed the following issues on merits:
(1) Were Mohan Lal and the plaintiff not members of joint Hindu family?
(2) Is the house in dispute joint Hindu family property?
(3) Was the plaintiff in possession of the portion sued and was he dispossessed by the defendants?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.