LAWS(SC)-1999-4-60

BRIJ RAJ SINGH [DEAD] Vs. SEWAK RAM

Decided On April 22, 1999
BRIJ RAJ SINGH Appellant
V/S
SEWAK RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R. S. A. No. 1807/71 dated 3/02/1982. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'. The second defendant, a pro forma party, is the father of the first defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff filed Suit No. 722/67 for recovery of possession of the suit site from the defendants. According to the averments in the plaint, the suit site was acquired by the plaintiff under a gift deed dated 18-1-1961 registered on 9-2-1961 and marked as Ext. PW-6/1 in the suit. One Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh was the donor under the said gift deed. The plaintiff before filing the present suit for possession preferred an application for ejectment of the defendants before the Rent Controller alleging that the first defendant who was a tenant under him denied the title. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 16-1-1967 held that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff and further held that the first defendant was liable to be ejected from the suit site. However on appeal the appellate authority by its order dated 3-6-1967 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the plaintiff has not proved that there existed a landlord and tenant relationship. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, the appellate authority dismissed the application for ejectment preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that they are the owners, that Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh had no connection whatsoever with the suit property and, therefore, had no right to make the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The gift deed, if any, he alleged, must be a devise by the plaintiff to grab the defendants' property. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit site.