MST NADRI BEGUM Vs. MST NASRAT BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for possession based on title in respect of the portion of a house in Mohalla Dariyabad, Allahabad. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired title to the house by purchase at a court sale in the year 1945. The number of the house when the suit was filed was alleged to be 694, Dariyabad, Allahabad. The portion of the house in suit was described as the western portion comprising of two dalans, two small kotharies and a small courtyard. It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants were in occupation of the portion in suit (house) as licensees on condition that they will make the necessary periodical repairs of the house and vacate the same when demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff revoked the defendant's licence by a registered notice dated 22nd May, 1962 and demanded possession.

(2.) The defence was denial of the plaintiff's title to the house No. 694, Dariyabad, Allahabad and an assertion of their own title to the house. It was also asserted that the defendants had been occupying the house in their own rights as owners and not as licensees. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff has not been in possession of the said house within 12 years of the suit and the suit is barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the owner of the house in suit and the defendants were licensees of the plaintiffs in a portion thereof, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the defendants were not in adverse possession of the house or owners thereof.

(3.) On appeal the lower appellate court confirmed the trial court's finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the house in suit but held that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the house within 12 years, next preceding the suit and that the plaintiff's case that the defendants were her licensees being incorrect, and the defendants being in possession openly, their possession must be deemed to have been adverse to the plaintiff.