LAWS(DLH)-2001-7-161

S SANTOKH SINGH Vs. S GURBUX SINGH

Decided On July 16, 2001
S.SANTOKH SINGH Appellant
V/S
S.GURBUX SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree passed on 24/9/1979 by Shri Satnam Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of garage No.61, Gulabi Bagh, Subzi Nandi, Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 2700.00 towards use and occupation charges against the defendants/appellants with costs of the suit.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 27/2/1974 Gurbux Singh, respondent filed a suit against Shri Bir Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants, claiming a decree for possession of the aforementioned property and for recovery of Rs.2700.00 towards damages for use and occupation with effect from 7/11/197/1 to 6/2/1974. It was inter alia alleged that the property was purchased by the plaintiff from Shri Prem Chand through sale deed executed and registered on 7/1/1970. Bir Singh, defendant had been in wrongful and unauthorised occupation of the property without consent either of Prem Chand, the previous owner or of the plaintiff. Eversince the property was purchased. The unauthorised possession of Bir Singh was not recognised by the plaintiff and was asked to vacate the property and also to pay damages for use.and occupation..A suit for the recovery of damages from the date when the plaintiff purchased the property (suit No.286/70) was filed against Bir Singh at the rate of Ra.400.00 per month reserving his right to take separate proceedings for recovery of possession. In the said suit Bir Singh took a plea that he was a tenant in the property. This plea of Bir Singh was negatived and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs on 11/9/1972. The defendant Bir Singh preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. A compromise was arrived at during the pendency of the appeal on 14/2/1974, as regards quantum of damages, which as per the compromise were allowed at the rate of Rs.1.00.00 per month. Decree of the trial court accordingly was modified to that extent. In this back ground the plaintiff claimed that the defendant being an unauthorised occupation was liable to deliver possession to the plaintiff and pay damages for the period from 7/11/1971 till vacation. Accordingly, he sought the decree aforementioned.

(3.) Before the written statement could be filed by Bir Singh, he expired on 2/9/1974. An application was moved by the plaintiff for bringing on record legal representatives of the defendant. Notice of this application seeking substitution was contested by the present appellants who raised a plea that in addition to the appellants there were other legal heirs of the deceased Sir Singh. Following issues were framed on the application to bring on record legal representatives of Bir Singhs :-