CHANDRA PAL Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the second appeal which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1978, passed by Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 369 of 1977 and also judgment and decree dated 23.4.1977 passed by Munsif (East) Allahabad in Suit No. 439 of 1972 revolves round the house constructed over a silver of plot No. 559 which is a grove land situated in village Kajia Pargana Nawabganj Post Office Athrampur district, Allahabad.

(2.) The plaintiffs initially instituted Suit No. 439 of 1972 for the relief of ejectment and possession of the land in suit and the premises in suit which are marked by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Ta and Tha. The facts set out in the plaint are that the grandfather of the plaintiff had given permission to the father of the defendant to reside in the house in question and after his death, to the defendant who had assured the plaintiff to vacate the premises in question but subsequently, he recanted on his assurance and consequently, he was served with a notice whereby licence was revoked. Ultimately, when notice served to him evoked no response, suit was instituted. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was averred that sister of Ganga Ram who was grandfather of the plaintiff had been yoked in marriage to Gaya Din grandfather of the defendant and it was with consent precipae that the house was raised on the land in question which was the grove land of Ganga Ram. It was further averred that Gaya Din had acquired rights as owner over the property and after his death, property devolved on his son Maya Ram and subsequently, it devolved on the defendants. It was further averred that since the house fell into decrepitude due to vagaries of time, it was re-built by the defendants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the property in question had been in possession since the time of their grandfather who had initially raised the construction on the grove land owned by the plaintiff with his consent and in this view of the matter, they have perfected their right over the land in question by reason of adverse possession. It was denied that they were licencee and instead claimed that the' land in question had been given by the grandfather of the plaintiff to the grandfather of the defendant. It was further canvassed in the alternative that even if it be assumed that there was no valid transfer they have attained ownership by perfecting their rights by reason of the fact that it was since the time of their grandfather that they have been in possession. It was further submitted that the trial court framed issue No. 7 on the question of limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the father of the defendant had merely been given licence to reside in the house in question and that a licensee cannot attain any right as claimed by the defendants. It is further urged that licence In favour of father of the defendant came to end with the death of Gaya Din father of the defendant and possession of defendant thereafter became adverse and in this perspective, the defendants cannot be treated as licensee.