BHIKU BHAI AND ORS. Vs. MANILAL MEERANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 21/8/1997 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jagdalpur, Kanker in Civil Suit No.8-A/1992, by which, plaintiff's suit has been decreed and upon declaration of title of the plaintiff, the defendants have been directed to hand over possession of the property and decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, has also been passed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants on the pleadings inter alia, that the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, property was purchased from one P. K. Rai and it was given to Late Deep Singh Chawda, who resided along with his family as Deep Singh Chawda was working as a Manager in the Factory owned by the plaintiff. In the pleadings, it was stated that the house, open land and cow shed was constructed by the plaintiff during the course of construction of his factory under the supervision of Deep Singh Chawda. It was pleaded that as long as Deep Singh Chawda was working as Manager in the employment of the plaintiff, he and his family were licensed to reside in the house in dispute. After death of Deep Singh Chawda, the plaintiff requested defendants to vacate the house, so that, it could be allotted to another Manager, but the defendant refused. When despite notice, possession was not handed over and title was disputed, the plaintiff filed suit.

(3.) The defendants took a stand that the house, adjoining land, cow shed did not belong to the plaintiff. Though, it was not disputed that Deep Singh Chawda was the Manager of the plaintiff, but the defendants came out with the case that the house was constructed by Deep Singh Chawda from his own funds under his ownership and title on a piece of land adjoining the factory, in which, he was working as Manager. The plaintiff had no title or ownership over the plot nor the plaintiff constructed the house. It was also pleaded that in settlement proceedings, land in dispute, on which, house was constructed and in which, defendants were living since 1978 has finally been settled in their favour by the order of the Revenue Authorities and they are enjoying the government lease over the land.