AJIT SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present suit filed by the plaintiff, pleadings were exchanged by the parties and were filed in this Court. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by this Court by order dated 18.2.2003. The first issue, which was framed on the pleadings of the parties, is as follows:

(2.) After framing the said issues it, was ordered that the said issue No.1 would be treated as a preliminary issue and the said issue was set down for arguments. Accordingly, the said issue has been argued today by the counsel appearing for the parties, during the course of which they have not only taken me through the pleadings of the parties in the present suit but also through the pleadings in the suit No.69/1984, which was re-numbered as suit No.63/1992 and the judgment which was rendered in the said suit by the Additional District Judge. Incidentally the Suit No.63/1992 was also between the same parties.

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to set out certain facts leading to the filing of the present suit. The plaintiff herein claims to be the absolute owner of 21/2 storied property bearing No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi. It is stated in the plaint of the present suit that the plaintiff with his own funds purchased plot No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the year 1965 and thereafter constructed the ground floor of the said suit property. It is also claimed that subsequently the plaintiff also constructed the first floor and the barsati floors in stages and completed the entire construction of the ground floor, first floor and barsati floor in stages by the year 1976. It is contended that father of the defendants No.1 to 5, and the husband of the defendant No.6 and uncle of the plaintiff, died on 5.5.1972 when the defendants No.1 to 6 were living at L-110, Kalkaji, New Delhi as tenant and that after the death of the father of the defendants No.1 to 5, the defendants were in great financial distress and accordingly the plaintiff in June 1972 allowed the defendants to live as a licensee in a portion of the ground floor of his house bearing No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi. It is also alleged that the first floor and the barsati floor were under the possession of the plaintiff and the said premises were let out by the plaintiff to a tenant, who vacated the said premises some time in 1991. It is stated that since the defendants avoided the subsequent request of the plaintiff and refused to vacate the ground floor of the premises, the plaintiff filed a suit in the District Court, which was registered as suit No.69/1984 and subsequently re-numbered as suit No.63/1992. The said suit was heard and tried by the Additional District Judge, Delhi and after completion of the trial, the said suit was decreed for recovery of possession of the ground floor of house No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs. However, the Additional District Judge, who rendered the judgment and the decree on 30.9.1997 granted 30 days time to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the said premises to the plaintiff. In the meantime, however, the said defendants filed an appeal, which is now pending for consideration in this Court being registered as RFA No.329/1997. However, it is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the defendants also forcibly entered into the first floor and the barsati floor of the property in question, namely, property No.L-59, Kalkaji, New Delhi and accordingly the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs: