SHAHRAJ Vs. MURTAZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present civil revision is directed against the impugned order dated 12.01.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rookree, Hardiwar in O.S. No. 32 of 2009 whereby learned trial court has decided issued no. 7 in relation to payment of court fee against the plaintiffs/revisionists.

(2.) Plaintiff/revisionist filed Original Suit No. 32 of 2009 with the averments that predecessor of the plaintiff were Zamindars, having agricultural and non agricultural land in village Baredi Rajputana Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. Father of the plaintiffs was the only son in the family, he had constructed some rooms (mud rooms) in the property, bearing Khasra No. 941/3 measuring 0.280 hectare (hereinafter referred as property in dispute) for keeping the agricultural equipments. In the year 1999, on the request of the defendants, father of the revisionists/plaintiffs gave the said property to the defendants on a license and it was settled that defendants will pay Rs. 12,000/- per annum as a license fee. Since, 2004, license fee was not paid by the defendants despite repetitive request made by the plaintiffs, then a registered notice was sent on 16.03.2009 to the defendants through the counsel, whereby the license of the defendants was cancelled and request was made to vacate the disputed property and possession of the same be handover to the plaintiffs. When defendants did not comply with the notice then plaintiffs constrained to file suit for mandatory injunction against defendants.

(3.) Defendants filed their written statements stating therein that defendants are not in possession of the property in dispute rather they are in possession of Khasra No. 951/02. It is further stated that defendants are in possession of Khasra No. 951/02 prior to abolition of Zamindari. They are poor persons and have constructed their houses under Indira Awas Scheme. It is further contended that in the year 1998 criminal case no. 352 of 1998 was lodged by the plaintiffs against son of defendant no. 6, therefore, there was no occasion to grant license in the favour of the defendants in the year 1999. It is further contended that due to enmity suit has been filed against the defendants, on false grounds.