JUDGEMENT
Amaresh K.Singh, J. -
(1.) Heard the
learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondent.
This appeal is directed against the judg-
ment and preliminary decree dated 30.11.96
passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Jagdish v. Amrit
Lal1. By the aforesaid judgment and decree,
the learned Additional District Judge No. 1,
Sri Ganganagar declared the parties to the suit
to be entitled to 1/3 share in the house in
question and further held the pLalntiff to be
entitled for partition.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the findings on issues No.
1, 2, 3 and 7 by the trial court are incorrect
and against law. The learned counsel for the
respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar.
(3.) It appears that respondent pLalntiff
Jagdish Lal filed a suit for partition of a residential house No. 78-P-Block, Sri Ganganagar.
According to the averments made in the pLalnt,
the house in dispute was purchased on 2nd
April, 1960, in the name of the pLalntiff and
the defendants. On the date of the execution
of the sale-deed, the house was duly constructed. The money for the purchase of the
house was supplied by the father of the pLalntiff and the respondents and during his life time,
the father of the pLalntiff and the defendants
continued to live in the disputed house. He
expired on 5th July, 1988. It was further
averred in the pLalnt that the pLalntiff and the
defendants were jointly in possession of the
house in dispute, but after the demise of their
father, some differences arose between the
pLalntiff and the defendants and in consequence
thereof, the pLalntiff found it difficult to live in
the house in dispute unless partition took place.
It was also averred in the pLalnt that the pLalntiff requested the defendants for partition of
the house, but latter did not care. Consequently, a notice was sent to the defendants
on 12th March, 1991, but the defendants did
not care to reply the same. The pLalntiff, therefore, prayed for the partition of the house in
dispute.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.