CFA 470/08 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.470/2008 Shri Poonam Chand Parashar Vs. Shri Madanlal Parashar and another Date Of Judgment :: 5th January, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Subhash Bisawa, for appellant. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for respondent. .......... By the Court :- This is an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no.1 Shri Poonam Chand Parashar against the judgment and decree dated 11/7/2008 passed by District Judge, Ajmer in a partition suit no.256/2004 whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff Madan Lal Parashar was decreed and the counter claim filed by appellant-defendant no.1 has been dismissed. 2. The respondent-plaintiff Shri Madan Lal Parashar, father of the appellant-defendant no.1 and respondent-defendant no.2 filed a suit for partition in regard to seven properties situated at Pushkar alleging that they are the ancestral properties. 3. The appellant-defendant no.1 filed a separate written statement wherein by way of counter claim he pleaded that CFA 470/08 (2) apart from seven properties one more 8th property bearing no.144/4 situated at Ram Ghat, Bari Basti, Pushkar is also ancestral Hindu undivided property and therefore partition of that property was also claimed by the appellant-defendant no.1 Poonam Chand. 4. Issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence and the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.7.2008 decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim preferred by the appellant-defendant no.1 Shri Poonam Chand Parashar. Aggrieved from the dismissal of the counter claim this appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the property bearing no.144/4 situated at Ram Ghat, Bari Basti, Pushkar is also partitionable property since the respondents are not the sole owners of the said property. It was then submitted that the disputed property had been purchased by one Triveni Devi through registered sale deed, who entrusted it to respondent Madan Lal Ji Parashar, father of the appellant, for proper care and since then the said property is being enjoyed by the joint Hindu family. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the property in question is not the joint Hindu family property, therefore, the appellant cannot claim partition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at CFA 470/08 (3) the bar. Even according to the appellant, the disputed property is not a joint Hindu family property but the title vests in one lady Triveni Devi who purchased it through registered sale deed and it is no one's case that the said property was ever purchased by Madan Lal Parashar-respondent no.1, father of the appellant, from joint Hindu family proceeds. Since the property in question belongs to one Triveni Devi and does not vest in the joint Hindu family of appellant, therefore he cannot claim partition of the said property. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment in regard to the issue in dispute. 9. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A.