- (1.) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the requisite court fee is condoned. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court who has lost before the two Courts below in a suit for possession by way of partition. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was entitled to 1/3rd share of the land shown as ABCDEFKHA. It was claimed that the land in question was originally owned by Gurdit Singh, grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6 and father of defendants No.1 and 2. Father of the plaintiff Pritam Singh had died in the year 1966. It was claimed that the land in question was never partitioned between the parties. However, defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No.6 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.6. The said sale deed was a sham transaction and without consideration and did not bind the plaintiff in any manner. Defendant No.6 was trying to take forcible possession. A consent written statement was filed by defendants No.3 to 5.
(2.) Defendants No.1,2 and 6 contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff had no concern with khasra Nos.151,152 and 153. It was further pleaded that father of the plaintiff and the defendants were owner of khasra No.157 only, whereas khasra Nos.152 and 153 belong to one Kishan Singh and khasra No.151 was a gair mumkin abadi.
(3.) The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, held that the plaintiff was not the joint owner of khasra Nos.152,153 and 151. It was further held that father of the plaintiff and the defendants were joint owner of khasra No.157 only. Consequently, a preliminary decree for partition of the aforesaid khasra No.157 was passed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.;