Description

The parties had jointly raised construction in the suit property. However, in the year 2018, advocates represented plaintiff had requested the defendant to partition the suit property by meters and bounds, to which the defendant refused and plaintiff advocates had to serve legal notice dated 22.8.2018 upon the defendant, which had not been responded by the defendant, due to which plaintiff had filed suit seeking partition of the suit property, though the same had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.3.2018, as defendant had shown his willingness for partition of the suit property, during pendency of said suit. However, thereafter, again, defendant refused to agree on partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. Hence, this suit. Notice of the suit was issued to defendant, who contested the same by filing written statement, raising preliminary objection, inter alia, on the grounds of maintainability; locus standi; estoppel; suppression of material and true facts; cause of action; wrong site plan; res-judicata; improper verification of the plaint and improper valuation of suit for court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, though it was admitted that the suit property had been jointly purchased by the advocates and defendant, but it was denied that the same had been occupied by both the parties to the extent of ½ share each. Rather, it was submitted that the plaintiff and defendant had their separate possession on the suit property. It was further submitted that the defendant had raised construction over his own plot with his own funds, without using even a single penny of the advocates, who wanted to grab the property of the defendant. At the time of oral partition of the plot, the plaintiff had given the portion marked by letters, DEFENDANT, shown in the site plan, to the defendant and the plaintiff had been paid the value of the said piece of land at the rates prevalent in the market at that time. Rests of the averments of plaint were denied and dismissal of suit with special costs under section 35-A was prayed for. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 11.12.2017:- 1. Whether advocates is entitled to a decree for possession and permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the court?OPD 6. Relief. On the other hand, defendant Ram Chander himself appeared in the witness box as DW1 and examined Balbir Singh son of Balwant Singh as DW2, besides relying upon following documentary evidence:- Ex.D1 Site plan. Ex.D2 Certified copy of plaint of civil suit of 2018. Ex.D3 Certified copy of written statement of civil suit of 2018. Ex.D4 Certified copy of site plan. After hearing both th eparteis and appraisal of oral as well as documentary evidence, trial court decided issue no.1 against the advocates; issue no.2 in favour of the defendant and issue no.4 to 7 against the defendant. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2018, against which plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal.

Lexlords Legal Services can be found at 3033 John Fitzgerald Kennedy Boulevard in New Jersey Bmc district . The following is offered: Legal Services - In Jersey City, NJ there are 32 other Legal Services. An overview can be found here.

Reviews

This listing was not reviewed yet

Categories

Map 3033 John Fitzgerald Kennedy Boulevard