RAJEEV SINGH & ANR. Vs. KUNWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant/son in the suit for possession mesne profits and injunction, against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 31.10.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 9.12.2016; decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/father.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he was the owner of the suit property bearing no.RZ-F-777/25B, Gali No.16, Raj Nagar Part-II Extension, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077 situated on a plot of 100 sq. yds. Respondent/plaintiff had purchased v. the property vide documents date 25.3.1996 from the erstwhile owner Sh. Rajinder Parshad. It was pleaded that the appellants, and who are the defendants in the suit, were the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff and they were harassing the respondent/plaintiff in his old age and had also beaten him up. Respondent/plaintiff asked the appellants/defendants to vacate the one room set on the first floor of the suit property and which the appellants/defendants failed to do, and therefore, after serving the legal notice dated 26.6.2014, the subject suit was filed.

(3.) Appellants/defendants contested the suit and denied that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. Appellants/defendants pleaded that the owner of the suit property was Smt. Lakhpati Devi being the wife of the respondent/plaintiff (and the mother of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1) as she had purchased the suit property from Sh. Rajinder Parshad on 21.3.1996. It was further pleaded by the appellants/defendants that after the death of Smt. Lakhpati Devi, the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 being a son and class one legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 became the co-owner of the suit property alongwith the respondent/plaintiff. Appellants/defendants pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had manipulated the documents dated 25.3.1996 in his favour from the erstwhile owner Sh. Rajinder Parshad, and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. Suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.