RAM KISHAN Vs. INDIAN ELECTRIC WORKS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the first defendant. The plaintiff sought possession of a corner of the plot described in the plaint from the first defendant. The plaintiff also sought mesne profits. There was also a prayer against the first defendant, from encroaching upon any other part of the plot of land. The suit is filed in the name of the plaintiff company by the person in whom the management of the company was vested by virtue of a notification issued under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred as the Act). The plaint states that the land measuring about 437.77 sq. yds. vested in the Government of India and was placed at the disposal of the Delhi Improvement Trust which was later granted on lease to the plaintiff company. The company deposited with Delhi Improvement ' Trust the requisite amount as premium. The possession of the land was given to the plaintiff company. On 4.12.1954 a certificate was issued on behalf of the company certifying that the possession had been taken over. In April 1956 an agreement was entered into between the aforesaid Trust and the plaintiff company under which the Trust covenanted to grant a perpetual lease of the plot of land to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had been in possession of the entire land eversince the lease; but in or about the year 1957 the first defendant illegally entered land and started a tea stall in a corner of the said land. Since the first defendant had been wrongfully retaining possession of the said corner of the land and built a 'chappar' over it for which the present suit for possession is filed. The second defendant is the successor of the aforesaid Trust. The plaint also states that the plaintiff put up boundary wall on the other two sides of the plot but the defendant No. 1 broke the wall at two places. It is unnecessary to refer to other averments in the plaint.

(2.) The first defendant contested the suit asserting that he has been in possession of the entire plot of land since about the year 1948. The representative capacity of the person suing in the name of the company was also questioned.The second defendant supported the case of the plaintiff substantially.

(3.) The trial court framed the following issues:-