Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below in a suit filed by none else than the appellant's own wife respondents wherein the respondents submitted that she has half share in the suit property and the Courts below declared her half share as she claimed. It will be worth while to mention here that the respondent/plaintiff in her plaint very specifically pleaded that she may be declared owner of half of the property and that too which is on the eastern side of the plot and in which the plaintiff/respondent is residing. The appellant/defendant submitted written statement and admitted that the respondent/plaintiff is his wife. However, he levelled some allegations against the respondent/plaintiff which appears to be of not very serious nature but the appellant also submitted that the respondent submitted a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein the matter was settled between the parties. So far as the property in question is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the registered sale deed, the names of the plaintiff and the defendant both have been shown as purchasers of property. The defendant's plea is that the plaintiff executed an agreement on 06.02.1991 and relinquished her share in the property in favour of the defendant. Admittedly, the said deed is not registered one.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the plaintiff, claiming herself to be co -owner of the property, has filed the suit for mere partition and in that, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific portion. It is also submitted that it was not a suit for possession which is apparent from the plaint and it is also clear from the record that the appellant has not paid the Court fees on the basis of her claim for declaration of her ownership right on the property in dispute not she claimed possession of specific portion of the property by paying Court fees.;