RAM CHANDRA Vs. HARI KIRTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for demolition of the construction and for possession. The plaintiff alleged that the land in question originally belonged to one Sri Ganga Ram and upon his death, the property devolved upon his daughter Shyama Devi. Shyama Devi executed a sale deed dated 11-11-1970 in favour of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in possession as owner of the said land. The defendants had illegally raised construction on a portion of this land, which was wholly illegal, and that the said construction was liable to be demolished and the plaintiff was liable to be put back in possession. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute.

(2.) The defendants denied the plaint allegations and contended that Ganga Ram or Shyama Devi were not the owners of the land in question and that the defendants came into exclusive possession on the basis of a private partition.

(3.) The trial Court held Ganga Ram was the original owner of the land in question and that Shyama Devi was the daughter of Ganga Ram and that the plaintiff became the owner of the land in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 11-11-1970. The trial Court further found that the sale deed dated 11-11-1970 was an unregistered document and the same was not a void document inasmuch as the value of the land shown in the sale deed was less than rupees hundred and, therefore, the sale deed was not required to be registered. The trial Court also found that the defendants had recently made the construction and that the defendants had no legal right to make any construction on the property of the plaintiff. The trial Court, on these findings decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to remove the constructions and give back the possession to the plaintiff within one month failing which the plaintiff could executed the decree. The trial Court further restrained the defendants from interfering ( in the plaintiffs' possession of the land in question.