ABDUL HAQ Vs. ZAINABUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant was the defendant before the trial court in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, had contended that on 2.2.1976, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed from one Syed Abubakar. The plaintiff had also claimed that she was a divorcee when the suit schedule property was given to her by her divorced husband in view of permanent alimony. She had five children by her husband. Therefore, on the advice of elderly persons, the suit schedule property was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff on the funds provided by her husband and there were no male members in the family of the plaintiff and she was living in the suit schedule property along with her father and other family members. She had subsequently raised loans and demolished old structures on the suit schedule property and had constructed a new two -storied building. The records pertaining to the property are all in the name of the plaintiff It is claimed that the property consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. In the ground floor, there are said to be three shops and in the first floor, two residential tenements and in the second floor, there is said to be a small house with asbestos sheet roofed. The plaintiff is said to be residing in the second floor. The defendant is none other than the brother of the plaintiff and he is in possession of one shop premises in the ground floor and one of the tenements in the first floor of the suit schedule property on free of rent as a licensee.

(3.) THOUGH the learned Counsel for the appellant would seek that the matter be referred to the Lok Adalat for an amicable settlement, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent Shri R.B. Sadashivappa that the matter had been referred to mediation on an earlier occasion and mediation failed miserably, as the parties were not able to reconcile with their differences and even if it is referred to Lok Adalat, the possibility of settlement is remote as the parties are vehement in their stand and would not be in a position to reconcile with their differences. In any event, if the matter is to be decided in accordance with law, it is evident that the plaintiff has established her title to the property by producing relevant documents. The claim set up by the defendant is not supported by any material evidence nor is there any counter claim raised by the defendant. Hence, in a suit by the plaintiff no relief can be granted to the defendant for the asking.