M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS , second appeal by the defendants -appellants is against the judgment of reversal. Suit filed by the plaintiffs - respondents being Partition Suit No. 58 of 1982 for decree of partition was dismissed by the trial Court, but the same was allowed in appeal by the appellate Court in title Appeal No. 35 of 1985.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent No. 1 is Tapsi Ram and plaintiff No. 2 is his wife Agnijot Devi. In the said suit, plaintiff No. 1 claiming to be a co -sharer, sought for partition in respect of his share in the suit property, whereas in the said suit plaintiff No. 2 claimed to have right, title and interest in respect of the portion of the property which she alleged to have purchased from one of the co -sharers defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiffs, there had never been partition among the heirs of Dukhbhajan Kahar and the parties are still joint. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed 1/9th share in the suit property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit was brought by the plaintiffs only with a view to get a declaration of title in respect of portion of the land alleged to have purchased by plaintiff No. 1 in the name of plaintiff No. 2 from the husband of defendant No. 3. Further case of all these defendants are that there had been partition by metes and bounds long back and the parties are coming in possession of their respective shares in the suit property and there is neither any unity of title or unity of possession. Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India The trial Court after appreciation of entire evidence, has recorded a conclusive finding that there had been partition of suit property by metes and bounds and parties have been exercising their title and possession over their respective shares by disposing of their shares to different persons. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court, however, reversed the finding and held that the parties are still joint and there had never been partition of the suit property. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the finding recorded by the trial Court was reversed.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. L.K. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.;