PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PREM PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Sec. 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.8.2002 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for possession and injunction with respect to the suit property forming part of the premises bearing No. 47/35, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

(2.) I may note that the appellant/defendant did not file any written statement in the suit nor he led any evidence and neither the witness of the respondent/plaintiff (i.e. plaintiff) was cross -examined. The appellant/defendant was duly served in the suit, but he failed to put in appearance. He only appeared at the stage of final arguments in the suit and prayed to be heard from the stage of final arguments only, and the same was permitted.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the property being 47/35, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was purchased by a partnership firm of M/s Prakash Oil Marketing Company vide a sale deed dated 9.1.1968. The partnership consisted of four partners namely Sh. Om Prakash, Sh. Surinder Kumar, Smt. Champa Devi (mother of the plaintiff) and Sh. Prem Prakash (the present plaintiff/respondent). The partnership was dissolved by dissolution deed dated 31.5.1972 and pursuant to which the subject property came to the share of the present plaintiff/respondent and the mother -Smt. Champa Devi. Smt. Champa Devi expired on 13.5.1994 leaving behind a registered Will dated 8.10.1987 (registered on 14.10.1987) whereby Smt. Champa Devi bequeathed her half share in the subject property to the respondent/plaintiff, who therefore became the complete owner of the property, he already being 50% owner by virtue of the dissolution deed dated 31.5.1972. The property was mutated in the name of respondent/plaintiff who permitted his son, i.e. appellant/defendant to reside in the suit property. However, after the marriage of the appellant/defendant there were differences in the family. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that the appellant/defendant became arrogant and disobedient and started mis -using the license given to reside in the suit property. It was also alleged that the appellant/defendant started harassing the respondent/plaintiff along with his wife and the life of the respondent/plaintiff and his wife and their elder son was made miserable. The appellant/defendant then instituted a suit for partition in the original side of this Court being suit No. 2653/1995 claiming a share in the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice dated 21.3.2001 terminating the license of the appellant/defendant and thereafter filed the subject suit for possession.