MAHESH CHAND Vs. AMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri U.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, counsel for the respondent. The present dispute relates to ejectment of the plaintiff appellant from the partnership firm in the premises, residential house situate in Masjidwali Gali, Bara Bazar, Dadri town, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, G.B. Nagar. The plaintiff appellant is son and the respondent defendant is his 85 years old father.

(2.) AT the outset it may be mentioned that while entertaining the appeal between the father and son, this Court on 4.9.2009 had sent the matter to "Mediation and Conciliation Centre" of this Court to enable the said centre to make an endeavour to settle the dispute in question. The conciliation has failed and the matter has again come up for adjudication, that is, for admission of second appeal. Through this second appeal appellant's son has assailed a judgment and decree dated 13.8.2009 passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge, G.B. Nagar confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 rendered by Civil Judge (Senior Division), G.B. Nagar while disposing of three suits by the contesting parties (Suit No. 171 of 2004 - Ami Chand v. Mahesh Chand, Suit No. 186 of 2004 - - Ami Chand v. Mahesh Chand and suit No. 265 of 2004 -Ami Chand v. Mahesh Chand). It emerges from the record that Mahesh Chand, son and father Ami Chand were carrying out business as members of partnership firm. It was alleged that Amichand (father) has purchased a residential house on 27.1.70 by his own resources. Earlier he has two sons and three daughters. The younger son Dinesh Chand had died and now Mahesh Chand remained his only son. Three daughters are married and are settled in their marital home. It was pleaded in suit No. 171 of 2004 being leading case that Ami Chand father had allowed his elder son Mahesh Chand to live in the residential house purchased by him with his family members as a licensee. This permission was accorded in the year 1977. The son Mahesh Chand along with his wife and children came to stay in the house owned by the father in the year 1977. The son had promised father to provide him food and facility to sustain himself in life. Later on the relations were restrained. It was alleged that the family members of Mahesh Chand (son) were misbehaving with the father Ami Chand. Hindrances were caused in his daily routine of worshipping, religious rituals etc. Charges of misbehaviour, violence etc. have been levelled against his son and his family members. A notice was sent through counsel on 1.3.2004 by which the licence to stay in the house was terminated. Mahesh Chand (son) was asked to vacate the premises. On refusal to do so, suit No. 171 of 2004 was filed.

(3.) SIMILAR pleadings were taken in other suits. Seven issues were framed in the first suit followed by seven issues in the second suit and three issues were framed in the third suit. The son Mahesh Chand in suit No. 186 of 2004 had asked for declaratory decree that the saledeed which was registered on 14.5.2001 was null and void and on the basis of such saledeed no title was passed to the father Amichand. No rights were available to him to claim title , ownership in the residential house where his family members were residing. Oral and documentary evidence were brought before the courts below. Father Amichand had filed several documents, affidavit, original saledeed dated 27.1.70 by which he had purchased the residential house from his own resources. The will dated 11.5.2000 and saledeed dated 14.5.2001, notice and other documents were filed. The respondent son had filed an affidavit sworn by one of his sisters. Documentary evidence was also produced by him.