L. N. Mittal, J. - (1.) CONTESTING Defendants No. 1 to 6 having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal.
(2.) SUIT was filed by Respondent No. 1 -Plaintiff Jagdish against Appellants and against proforma Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as proforma Defendants No. 7 to 9, for partition of two plots No. 3572 and 3648 alleging that parties are descendants of common ancestor Hardutt from his two wives Udi and Siriya. Plaintiff and proforma Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are descendants from Udi, whereas Defendants No. 1 to 6 are from Siriya. Hardutt had five sons out of whom one Kamal Dutt died issueless and Jawala Dutt had two sons and both died issueless. Plaintiff and proforma -Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are descendants of Kanshi Dutt son of Hardutt, whereas, Defendant No. 1 to 6 are descendants of Munnidutt and Chunnidutt sons of Hardutt. Plaintiff claimed half share in the suit plots for himself and proforma Defendant Nos. 7 to 9, leaving the other half share for Defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 contested the suit. They alleged that the pedigree table pleaded by the Plaintiff is wrong. However, it was admitted that parties are descendants of Hardutt and that Hardutt was owner in possession of the suit plots. Contesting Defendants, however, alleged that Udi separated from Hardutt during his lifetime and, therefore, Udi and her heirs were not given any share in the property of Hardutt. The Plaintiff and proforma Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 being descendants of Hardutt from Udi are not entitled to any share in the suit plots once held by Hardutt, and only the descendants of Hardutt from Siriya i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 became owners of the entire property once held by Hardutt and, therefore, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are exclusive owners in possession of the suit plots also. They have constructed house on plot No. 3648 after filling earth therein. They have also constructed one room in the other plot. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 decreed the Plaintiff's suit holding that Plaintiff and proforma Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 have 1/3rd share in the suit plots. Some other ancillary directions were also given. Preliminary decree for partition was accordingly passed. First appeal preferred by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have preferred the instant second appeal.;