DAULAT RAM DEAD Vs. YASHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the defeated defendant against judgment and decree dated 25.1.1982 passed by Civil Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1982, allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1987 passed by Munsif, Khurja, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 124 of 1977. and decreeing the suit of plaintiff respondent for permanent Injunction.

(2.) Respondent Yashpal, [hereinafter called the plaintiff), filed Suit No. 124 of 1977 against the appellants Daulat Ram and Indrasen, (hereinafter called the defendants), for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over plot No. 3029 area 10 bighas, 1 biswa, with the allegations that he was owner in possession of the plot in suit and the defendants had no concern with the same. The defendants were forceful persons and wanted to take forcible possession over the land in suit, hence the suit on 13.7.1977.

(3.) The defendants filed joint written statement and contested suit. Their defence was that plot in suit was grove land on the spot and its original owners migrated to Pakistan. The plot, In suit, therefore, was declared as Evacuee Property. In the year 1947 the plaintiff and his father Master Lal Chand and the defendants came to India from Pakistan. Since father of the plaintiff and defendants were jointly carrying on business in Pakistan, they started their joint business in India also. In the business in India, plaintiff had half share and defendants 1 and 2 had 1/4th share each. The plot in suit was auctioned in the year 1957 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lal Chand and defendants jointly purchased the said property from the income of their joint business in the auction sate and they had agreed that half share of it would be of Lal Chand and in the remaining half share defendants No. 1 and 2 would gel 1/4th share each, according to their share in the joint business. However, due to some legal complications sale certificate was executed in the name of Lal Chand alone and his name atone was recorded in the revenue records. Till the life-time of Lal Chand there was no dispute between the parties and defendants were utilising their half share in the plot in suit. A family settlement was also executed between them and defendants were occupying southern half portion of the land in suit as owners over which they were cultivating various crops and had also installed a tube-well with separate water channel. After the death of Lal Chand, the name of his son Yashpal was mutated in revenue records, but he also recognised half share of defendants in southern portion. In the year 1977 the defendants asked the plaintiff to get their names mutated over the property in suit, but the plaintiff refused and wrongly filed the suit.