RAM CHANDER Vs. BISANIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 24.4.1997 by which the trial court dismissed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to part of the subject property being House No. 289, Krishna Gali, Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The suit property comprises of one room, open courtyard and latrine on the first floor of the subject property. Trial court held that appellant's/plaintiff's father was the owner of the suit property in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.6.1962/Ex. PW-3/1 (Also Ex.AW-2/1) and the appellant/plaintiff/son of the original owner became the owner of the suit property on the death of the father of the appellant/plaintiff Sh. Sukh Lal, but, the suit was dismissed by holding respondents/defendants were in adverse possession of the suit property.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a suit for possession was filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property pleading that the original owner of the suit property was Sh. Sukh Lal, the father of the appellant/plaintiff. Sh. Sukh Lal had died on 31.10.1979 leaving behind appellant/plaintiff and respondent no. 4/ defendant no. 4 (daughter of Sh. Sukh Lal) as the only legal heirs and representatives. By virtue of the Will dated 10.5.1979 (Ex. PW5/1) the suit property was bequeathed to appellant/plaintiff and respondent no. 4/defendant no. 4 in equal shares. It was pleaded that by virtue of the oral partition between the respondent no. 4/defendant no. 4 and the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property has fallen to the share of the appellant/plaintiff. One Sh. Bansi Lal was inducted in the suit property as a tenant by Sh. Sukh Lal. After the death of Sh. Bansi Lal, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 who are the widow and sons of Sh. Bansi Lal, stepped into the shoes of Sh. Bansi Lal. On account of nonpayment of rent by the respondents/defendants, an eviction petition was filed in the court of Ld. Rent Controller of Delhi which was dismissed by Sh. V.K. Jain, Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 6.7.1988 holding that appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, appellant/plaintiff had no option but to file the subject suit in the civil court for possession of the suit property against the respondents/defendants pleading the respondents/defendants as trespassers. Mesne profits were also claimed.

(3.) Respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing their written statement. It was pleaded by respondents/defendants that they were equal owners of the suit property as the suit property was the ancestral property purchased by the joint funds of Sh. Sukh Lal and Sh. Bansi Lal who were brothers and also from the funds of their father. Respondents/defendants alternatively pleaded to be in adverse possession of the suit property. It was denied that Sh. Bansi Lal paid any rent to Sh. Sukh Lal or that respondents/defendants stepped into the shoes of the tenant Sh. Bansi Lal after the death of Sh. Bansi Lal. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.