HARI RAM MUR LAL Vs. NIRANJAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 108 of 2005 by Hari Ram and No. 125 of 2005 by Banwari Lal and Niranjan Lal were brought from a final decree of the District Judge, Narnaul, dated 19 -1 -2005 in a cause for partition. The suit is of no recent date but was instituted as far back as the year 1987 Bk. by Hari Ram and Rameshwar Dial, sons of L. Murari Lal who claimed to be joint owners in the property in question comprising of a haveli and a nauhra in Narnaul and a house in Murari Pur. Niranjan Lal and Banwari Lal accepted the partition to be fair and did not wish to prosecute their appeal which was, therefore dismissed on 19 -4 -1950. Out of the two Plaintiffs only Hari Ram has appealed and as his brother Rameshwar Dial had not joined him, he has been arrayed as a formal Respondent.

(2.) THE Appellant and the Respondent are the representatives of a common ancestor who had acquired and built the property which has been sought to be partitioned. The suit was dismissed by the Naib Nazim, Narnaul on 6 -2 -1998 but a preliminary decree was passed by the District Judge on 29 -9 -1998 which was finally maintained by the Judicial Committee as is apparent from its judgment dated 17th November 1944/l3th Maghar 2001. Mr. Ram Saran Chand Mittal, a prominent lawyer of Narnaul, was appointed a local Commissioner to effect partition by metes and bounds, and he submitted his report on 14 -4 -2002 which in the light of the objections of the partita was remitted to him for further consideration. He has now spent time and energy to find a suitable and workable solution of the enigmas presented by the parties in the form of objections and counter -proposals. The warned District Judge after inspecting the locality and examining carefully the allotment proposals by the Commissioner and thus practically holding an investigation over again himself, has except for a minor variation, adopted the report of Mr. Mittal, as the basis of his judgment and has remarked that

(3.) I agree.