LILA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising from the concurrent findings of the two courts below that the appellants have miserably failed to prove that the house in question bearing No. F-11/106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which was purchased in the name of Sh. Hira Nand, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, is the joint property of the parties.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Hira Nand and his two younger brothers Arjan Dass and Daulat Ram with their families had shifted on partition of the country to Delhi and Hira Nand and Arjan Dass and their wives and children lived together in the house in question. The lease deed, copy of which is Ex. PW1/1 and conveyance deed, copy of which is Ex. FW1/2, were issued in favour of Hira Nand. These documents of title.clearly show that it is only Hira Nand who had purchased this property and consideration had been paid by him. Both Hira Nand and Arjan Dass had died in the year 1971. After about two years of their death, the respondents in this appeal, i.e. widow and three sons of Hira Nand brought at first an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act with the averments that Arjan Dass was the tenant in the portion of the said house and eviction was sought on various grounds mentioned in the eviction petition. The appellant Smt. Lila Devi, widow of Arjan Dass and her two minor sons took up the plea in fact Arjan Dass was never a tenant in the house in question and the house was, in fact, purchased by Arjan Dass and Hira Nand and thus, they were living in the house as coowners. On this plea being taken by the appellants the respondents filed the present suit seeking possession from the appellants on the averments that Hira Nand was the exclusive owner of the property in question and on his death the property has been inherited by the respondents and the appellants had no legal right to continue to live in the house in question. Incontesting the suit same plea was taken by the appellants as was taken in the eviction proceedings that the appellants were living in the said premises as co-owners.

(3.) So, the only question which arose for decision in this matter was whether the appellants are living in the house in question as co-owners or not? It is not out of place to mention here that after the suit had been decreed against the appellants, one of the appellants, namely, Radhey Shyam had filed a civil suit and sought injunction on the pleas that in fact, Arjan Dass was the tenant in the said portion of the house and tenancy rights had been inherited by him. It appears that his effort to obtain any injunction restraining the respondents from executing the decree proved futile.