JAGMOHAN LAL Vs. HARKISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants. It is against the judgment and decree dated 20 January 1986 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of property bearing No. E-l/3. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and mesne profits/damages amounting to Rs. 1,800.00 was decreed with costs.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit on 16 August 1982 in the court of the District Judge. Delhi. He alleged he was owner of two properties hearing No. E-1/3 and E-1/4. Lajpat Nagar. New Delhi, which, he said, he purchased from the Union of India. Perpetual lease deed of the land (Ext.PW 1/l) and conveyance deed of the superstructure (Ext.PW 1/2) were executed on 24 June 1977 and registered before the Sub Registrar, New Delhi. On behalf of the Union of India both these documents were executed by the Managing Officer (Department of Rehabilitation. Settlement Wing), New Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff said that his uncle Mela Ram (father's brother) had no place to reside and he. therefore, granted him licence to occupy one of the properties, bearing No. E-1/3, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (for short "the suit property') at a monthly licence fee of Rs.30.00 which later on was increased to Rs. 50.00 per month as the plaintiff said he built some extra structure in the suit property. With the plaint the plaintiff filed the plan of the suit property. The plaintiff then said that Mela Ram died and he asked the defendants, being the legal heirs of Mela Rani. to vacate the suit property. Instead, these defendants filed a revision petition under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"), against the order dated 4 June 1977 whereby the lease deed and conveyance deed were executed in favour of the plaintiff. This revision petition was dismissed on 23 September 1980 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Ext. PW2/1). A further petition undersection 33 of the same Acy was as filed before the Central Government, hut the same was also dismissed on 31 January 1981 (Exl.PW2/2). The defendants thereafter filed a civil writ petition in Delhi High Court (CWP No. 646/81) against the orders of the rehabilitation authorities, hut the same was also dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 28 September 1981 (Ext.PW2/3). Plaintiff said that all these proceedings clearly established his ownership in both the properties, i.e., E-1/3 and E-1/4, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He also said that the orders of the rehabilitation authorities and the judgment of this Court operated as res judicata and the defendants could not challenge the title of the plaintiff to these properties. Since the defendants failed to vacate and also did not pay damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month, the plaintiff filed the suit. He claimed damages for past three years. He fixed the market value of the suit property at Rs. 25,000.00 and thus valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.26,800.00 and paid the requisite court fee thereon. According to the plaintiff, cause of action arose on 27 February 1980 when vacant possession of the suit property was demanded from the defendants and they refused to surrender possession of the same. Cause of action as regards claim for mesne profits accrued on 31 August 1979 and again as and when these fell due.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. They raised a preliminary objection that the court of District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction inasmuch as the market value of the property was about Rs. 3 lakhs and had been wrongly stated by the plaintiff to be Rs.25.000.00 . Then they said they had been allotted the suit property by the authorities of the Rehabilitation Department. Government of India, and they had been in possession of the same for the last 32 years or so. They said the suit property formed part of the compensation pool under the Act and since the parties in the suit were to he paid compensation for their verified claims under the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder the plaintiff was not entitled to allotment of both the properties. They said that because the plaintiff was the karta of the Joint Hindu Family of the family of Mela Ram and his own family which consisted of about 15 members the allotment of two units was made in his name on the basis of numerical strength of the family members. The defendants also said that the suit was barred by limitation since they had been in possession for the last 32 years or so. The defendants said that they had also contributed and paid the price of the suit property to the plaintiff for him to make payment to the Government of India to acquire the membership on a specific understanding arrived at by way of an oral agreement that defendants should be the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff would convey the same to them, as and when the defendants would ask him to do so. Claim of the defendants was, therefore, that this suit property was purchased benami by the plaintiff for and on their behalf and for their benefit for the price paid by them. This arrangement, the defendants also said, was by way of a family settlement. The defendants then gave a brief history as to how the family of Mela Ram and the family of Tara Chand (father of the plaintiff) came from West Pakistan and filed their joint claims under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. in respect of their properties left in Pakistan. The defendants said that regarding compensation to he claimed by them an application form bearing C.A.F. NO.ND/ 1986/IV/NTA was submitted. It is then stated that on 22 April 1950 the Ministry of Rehabilitation allotted these two tenements E-1/3 and E-1/4. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 100 sq. yds. each to Mela Ram and the family of late Tara Chand on the basis of strength of their family members which again, it was asserted, was 15. The defendants said that the names of members of the Joint Hindu Family were duly mentioned in the aforesaid compensation application form. The defendants claimed that there was mutual partition among the members of the family whereby the suit property remained permanently occupied by the legal heirs of Mela Ram. Defendants denied that they were licensees, or the rate of licence fee was as contended by the plaintiff. It was also mentioned that even otherwise the defendants had become owners by adverse possession as they had been in occupation of the suit property from the year 1950 without any hinderance or objection by the plaintiff at any time. It was stated that the plaintiff never raised any issue till October 1980 when he filed a suit for permanent injunction against them restraining them from effecting any structural additions/alterations in the suit property. Defendants said that the additional structure in the suit property had been raised by them at their own cost, and they had been paying house-tax of the suit property as well. They denied that the orders of the rehabilitation authorities under the Act operated as res judicata.