RAMESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI Vs. OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In original Suit No. 4/1999, Om Prakash Srivastava v. Rameshwar Prasad Tiwary, plaint averment was that the original owner of the property detailed in plaint by letters ''Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Da, Dha, Ya, Ra, La' was Brij Jeevan Lal Rastori, after whose death said property was inherited by Narendra Mal, and thereafter his heirs Ram Lal and Satya Narain became its owners. Plaintiff's mother Smt. Krishna Devi had purchased a portion of said property from Ram Lal and Satya Narain by registered sale-deed dated 5.5.1953. Said property is detailed in plaint map by letters ''Aa, Ba, Sa, Da'. This portion is disputed, and other portion of said property is not disputed. After purchase by sale-deed dated 5.5.1953, plaintiff's mother had raised certain constructions over it and admitted defendant in one room of said property as licencee. Thereafter, defendant had purchased other portion of same building from Mahesh Prasad and started construction. In year 1980 one Mool Chandra Jain had instituted an Original Suit No. 45/1980 against defendant. In said suit possession of plaintiff was found over property ''Aa, Ba, Sa Da'. After the death of his mother Smt. Krishna Devi, the plaintiff had revoked license of defendant and asked him to vacate the said disputed premises, but defendant had refused to vacate it. Therefore, plaintiffs had filed suit for eviction of defendant from the portion of his property detailed by letters ''Aa, Ba, Sa, Da' in plaint map and also prayed for damages for unauthorized use and occupation of said property.

(2.) Defendant had filed written statement, by which he had denied the plaint averments and told that he had purchased property in disputed and other property relating to it and is in its possession. He had admitted the plaint averment regarding proceedings of Original Suit No. 45 of 1980 but pleaded his possession over disputed portion of property. He further pleaded that plaintiff has no right to raise construction over property of defendant and his suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After framing of issues, and accepting the adduced evidences, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitrakoot had passed judgment dated 27.5.2010, by which original suit was decreed for eviction of defendant (present appellant) from disputed portion of property in question and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day from defendant for unauthorized use and occupation of said portion of disputed property.