MADAN LAL Vs. RAM SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which has been pending in this court for the last almost nine years. A substantial question of law prima facie arising from the appeal was framed by this court on 20.3.2013 which reads as under:

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. The respondent herein, Ram Saroop, filed a suit bearing No. 378/1979 against the appellant herein, Madan Lal, for possession and for recovery of Rs.20/ - as damages for the use and occupation of the premises bearing No. 280 situated at Abadi Kakker, Pul Mithai, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The case which was setup by the plaintiff/respondent was that his father Moolchand was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from one Baldev Dass vide a registered sale deed on 18.4.1911. The property, after construction, was given Municipality Nos. 9347 -9348, which formed a part of the said property No. 280 along with property No. 9344 -9346. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that so far as property No. 9344 -9346 is concerned, it was sold by Moolchand, his father to one Smt. Devi in the year 1942 during his lifetime. Moolchand died in the year 1955 and he had also permitted the appellant/defendant to occupy a room on the ground floor, more particularly, shown in pink in the site plan attached to the suit free of charge as a licensee. It was alleged that the plaintiff/respondent along with his brother Manohar Lal allowed the appellant/defendant to continue to occupy the premises as a licensee and on 10.5.1978, the brother of Moolchand relinquished all his right, title and interest in the said property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for consideration and the document so executed by him was duly registered with the Sub -Registrar on 10.5.1978. Since the respondent/plaintiff required the said room and the chappar, he asked the appellant/defendant to vacate the same vide notice dated 9.8.1978 revoking the license granted to the appellant/defendant which he failed to do. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession with mesne profits/damages @ Rs.20/ - per month. The defendant/appellant filed his written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff/respondent. He claimed to have become owner of the suit property by adverse possession as he was alleged to be in possession for the last more than 12 years. It was also alleged by the appellant/defendant that Moolchand was not the owner of the property No. 9347 but one Gokul Bhagat was the actual owner and after his death, Ram Prashad and Chunni Lal became the joint owners. It was also stated that Ram Prashad had also expired and his widow Kokila Devi became the owner and after the death of Chunni Lal, his adopted son, namely, the defendant/appellant, became the joint owner along with Kokila Devi. It was stated that neither the respondent/plaintiff nor his brother had anything to do with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

(3.) WHETHER the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP