ASHISH KUMAR Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely, ADJ-6, South Distt., New Delhi in RCA No.12/2015 preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, whereby the first appeal of the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge-01 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dismissing the suit has been set aside. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit to seek recovery of possession and pendentelite and future mesne profits against the appellant/defendant in respect of the suit property, i.e. first floor of property no.J-501, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-110062.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from the erstwhile owner/allottee, namely, Sh. Shiv Charan, s/o. Sh. Kishan Lal after execution of the relevant documents including receipt. The suit property comprises of four floors and admeasures 22 1/2 sq. yds. The plaintiff stated in the year 1980, he permitted his younger brother Sh. Shyam Singh (since deceased), to stay in the property as a licensee. Later, his family also started living in the premises. The plaintiff claimed that the control and symbolic possession always remained with him and the electricity and water connection are in his name, which were also being paid by him alone. The plaintiff stated that he is a government servant and an allottee of government flat at Pushp Vihar. He filed the suit since his elder son was of marriageable age and all his children, i.e. three sons and one daughter were staying at the suit property. Since he needed the suit property for the growing needs of his family, he filed the suit as the defendant failed to vacate the premises despite request.

(3.) The appellant/defendants filed the written statement. Apart from raising preliminary objections with regard to limitation; jurisdiction of the court; valuation of the suit; non-joinder of DDA as a party; lack of cause of action and lack of locus standi of the plaintiff, on merits the case of the appellant/defendant was that the suit property was purchased from the funds of the mother of the plaintiff and late Sh. Shyam Singh, so that the same could be enjoyed as a residence by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant claimed that the suit property was a joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant claimed that late Sh. Shyam Singh was staying in the suit property since the date of its purchase. It was claimed that he is staying in the property as a matter of right and not upon grant of permission by the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed that late Sh. Shyam Singh contributed towards the purchase of the house and the income of late Sh. Shyam Singh was fivefold that of the plaintiff. The defendant also stated that they were sharing electricity and water connection charges with the plaintiff.