LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-460

MADAN MOHAN Vs. CHANDER BHAN

Decided On January 05, 2012
MADAN MOHAN Appellant
V/S
CHANDER BHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 7.7.2008 by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/father for possession, damages and permanent injunction was decreed against the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are the son and his wife (i.e. daughter-in-law of the respondent).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction against the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff was an absolute owner of the property No. 105-A/1, Village Begumpur, Post Office Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was pleaded that the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff was proved by the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2002 passed by the Court of Sh. I.C. Tiwari, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 69/1998 titled as Shri Chander Bhan v. Shri Amar Chand & Ors. It is pleaded that the property is mutated in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) records in the name of respondent/plaintiff and house tax was also being paid by the respondent/plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were said to have misbehaved with the respondent/plaintiff/father by humiliating, torturing, maltreating and defaming him, whereafter the respondent/plaintiff was forced to disown the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent/plaintiff also terminated the license of the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 since they were allowed to stay only on account of closeness in their relations, and thereafter, the subject suit came to be filed as the appellants failed to vacate the suit property.

(3.) The appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by claiming that the suit property was in fact an HUF property because the same was purchased out of the funds of the ancestral property being 91, Begampur, Delhi. It was also claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.