ROHITA SHARMA Vs. RAJKUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner impugns order dated 07.12.2018 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed while deciding an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The Trial Court has held that since the original plaintiff had ceased to be the owner of the suit property by virtue of a judgment, though he had filed an appeal, till the judgment was reversed, he was not entitled to maintain the suit.

(2.) Subject Suit was filed by Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma against the respondents, who are his son and daughter-in-law, claiming that they were permissive licensees and had been permitted to use a portion of the property being his son and daughter-in-law in the subject premises. It is contended that the relations became strained on account of which he did not want to continue with the permissive license and accordingly the subject Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) Shri Ram Avtar Sharma had claimed title to the suit property by virtue of certain transfer documents executed by one Sh. Rajesh Jhangra as attorney of Ms. Preeti Sharma. Ms. Preeti Sharma filed a Suit seeking cancellation of the documents. A decree was passed declaring the documents in favour of Shri Ram Avtar Sharma to be null and void. Shri Ram Avtar Sharma filed an appeal. In the appeal filed by Shri Ram Avtar Sharma respondent No.1 was impleaded as an appellant as he was living in a part of the property. Status quo has been passed by the Appellate Court.