C.B.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 1967, of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar.
(2.) PROM the evidence on record, the following pedigree showing the relationship of the defendants with the vendors emerges: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | Raghunath Doongarsidas | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | Ramprasad Ramdeo | | (Deft. 1) | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | Kedranath Ramkishore (Adopted by Doongardidas) (Vendors) | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | Maliram Prabhudaya Banshidhar Madanlal (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4) (Deft. 5) By a sale -deed dated 18th August, 1953, Kedarnath and Ramkishore said half specified portion of the Haveli and the Nonra described in para 1 of the plaint situated in Shri Madhopur along with their properties namely two shops & their apartments on the old Haveli in consideration of Rs. 20,000/ - to the plaintiff Jagmohanlal who is also their brother in -law, that is sister's husband. Jagmohanlal plaintiff's case in the lower court was that after the execution of the sale -deed, Kedarnath and Ramkishore delivered possession of their half specified share of the Haveli and Nohra to him and that possession continued till the year 1953 when Ramdeo defendant took that portion of the Haveli and the Nohra excepting the room marked 'M' of the Hiveli for using it temporarily for the marriage of his son. After the conclusion of the marriage, Ramdeo did not deliver back possession of the disputed Haveli and Nohra inspite of repeated demands and so the present suit had to be instituted for recovery of possession and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20/ - P.M. In the alternative it was prayed that in case the court found that the said Haveli and Nohra had not been partitioned by metes and bounds between Keiarnath, Ramkishore and Ramdeo, a decree for partition may be passed in his favour and half the share of the disputed properties be allotted to him and possession over the same may also be delivered. The suit was contested by all the defendants excepting Midanlal and their main plea was that a partition took place between them and Kedarnath Ramkishore in 1950 in which the entire disputed Haveli and Nohra was allotted to their share. It was stated that after the said partition. Kedarnath and Ramkishore had no interest left in the disputed property and were not entitled to transfer it to the plaintiff. It was also stated that Kedarnath and Ramkishore never remained in possession of the disputed property and that the alleged sale was without consideration. They also denied their haying taken the disputed portions of the Haveli and the Nohra for use for the marriage of one of them Right or the plaintiff to claim partition was also denied. It. was stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any mesne profits and that the suit was time barred. Objection regarding non -joinder of necessary parties that is Kedarnath and Ramkishore was also taken.
(3.) ON the above pleadings, the lower court framed the following issues: 1. Whether Kedarnath and Ramkishore were the owners of half of the Haveli and Nohra as decribed in para No. 1 of the plaint and whether they sold the disputed property to the plaintiff and executed a sale deed in his favour on 18 -8 -1953 and delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff? 2. Did the defendant Ramdev in connection with the marriage of his son Banshidhar defendant No. 4 obtain temporarily permissive possession over half of the disputed Haveli and Nohra from the plaintiff in the year 1959? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree for possession over the disputed Haveli and Nohra and for arrears of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 720/ - at the rate of Rs. 20/ - p.m. from the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the disputed Haveli and Nohra partitioned and to obtain possession of half of that Haveli and Nohra?;