RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit for partition by way of separate possession of 1/2 share of the joint property of the parties measuring kanals 9 marlas falling in Khewat No. 90, Khatauni No. 27, khasra No. 1580 situated in village Dohar, Had bast No. 602, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
(2.) IN order to establish the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendants the plaintiffs have given the following pedigree table :- The plaintiffs are the descendants of Shobha Ram whereas the defendants are the descendants of Jangi, who were reals brothers and were owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share each. They were the original proprietors of the village and therefore they had share in the shamlat as well as abadi deh. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that their ancestors as well as ancestors of the defendants had settled in khasa No. 1580 measuring 2 Kanals 9 marlas and started using it as abadi. The plaintiffs have asserted that they are in joint possession of the land which is subject matter of the dispute in which they had even planted valuable trees towards the eastern corner. The allegation is that about two years back defendant Nos. 2 to 6 had raised construction on the western corner of the suit property and again threatened one week before the filing of the suit, to raise new construction in the joint land in their possession by cutting the trees and by dispossessing them forcibly. The plaintiffs had asked for partition of the suit land, but the defendants had refused, hence this suit. On notice of the suit, the defendants filed their written statement in which preliminary objection was taken that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the suit is not valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and is bad for partial partition. On merits, so far Para No. 1 is concerned, pedigree table has been admitted but relation of plaintiff with Bhagat Singh was denied on the ground that he was not his adopted son. However, they have admitted that Jawala and others were proprietors of the village. They did not specifically deny that Shobha Ram and Jangi had 1/2 share each in the suit property. They further pleaded that actually their ancestors and now they have their houses in the site in dispute which is abadi deh and that Sant Ram had his abadi in khasra No. 2241/1363. They have further claimed that trees have been plated by them in the suit property. They denied that Sant Ram had any share in the suit property.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication controverting the stand of the defendants and reiterated the stand taken by them in the plaint.;