DILBAGH SINGH Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Regular Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the appellant/defendant impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 2.8.2013 and the First Appellate Court dated 30.1.2017; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for mandatory injunction and damages by granting the relief of possession to the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the suit property bearing No. B-28-30, Bhalswa Dairy Complex, Delhi. The suit has been decreed by the courts below on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he is the owner of the suit property. Appellant/defendant is the cousin of the respondent/plaintiff as the latter is son of the the paternal uncle late Sh. Sonarain. It is then pleaded that in the year 1990 appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff for using of the suit property as a licensee because the property was lying vacant. Respondent/plaintiff agreed to this request and appellant/defendant was allowed to occupy the suit property as a licensee. It is then pleaded that appellant/defendant became dishonest and wanted to grab the suit property, and therefore, refused to vacate the suit property and accordingly, a legal notice dated 3.10.2000 was sent to the appellant/defendant. Since the appellant/defendant still failed to comply with the legal notice by failing to vacate the suit property, the subject suit for possession and damages came to be filed.

(3.) Appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he had become the owner of the suit property because appellant/defendant had paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash to the respondent/plaintiff as token/advance money. It was further pleaded that an additional sum of Rs. 37,000/- was also given to the respondent/plaintiff and a receipt was signed by the respondent/plaintiff acknowledging the amount of Rs. 37,000/-. It was then pleaded that balance payment of Rs. 63,000/- was paid in two instalments of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 33,000/-, both in cash on 15.6.1990 and 10.7.1990. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the appellant/defendant became owner of the suit property, and therefore, respondent/plaintiff was false in urging that appellant/defendant was only a licensee of the suit property.