MADAN MOHAN GUPTA Vs. ANAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected second appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Defendants-appellants have preferred Second Appeals No. 606 of 2009 and 774 of 2015 challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2002 ( arising out of Original Suit No. 81 of 1994) and Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2002 ( arising out of Suit No. 769 of 1995) dated 30.4.2009, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent's have been decreed and the defendants-appellants have been directed to hand over peaceful possession of respective portion held by them to the plaintiff-respondents in disputed property i.e. House No. 264 ( new number 320) Colonelganj, Allahabad.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are that Original Suit No. 81 of 1994 was filed by Sharda Prasad Gupta with the plaint averments that he owned about 9 different houses at Allahabad and as he was nearing 80 years of age, he persuaded all his four sons namely, Madan Mohan Gupta, Sadan Mohan Gupta, Anand Gupta and Ajeet Gupta to enter into a family settlement so as to have the properties separated/ partitioned amongst them so that after his death no dispute survives. A family settlement was consequently, arrived at between Sharda Prasad Gupta and his four sons on 8.8.1990 and each of the four sons with his family was put in possession over specific share pursuant to family settlement and their respective names were also recorded in the Nagar Mahapalika. In the family settlement, House No. 264 , however, was retained by Sharda Prasad Gupta and was not given to any of the sons. It was asserted that since all sons were given their respective shares, they had no concern left with House No. 264, which fell exclusively in the share of plaintiff. Defendant-appellant Madan Mohan Gupta, however, sought permission from his father to continue for a few months in House No. 264 but after expiry of 4 months, he sought extension of time but even after further expiry of 6 months, he showed no signs of vacating the premises and the father suspected his intentions to vacate the premises, and as certain constructions were attempted to be raised by Madan Mohan Gupta, as such his licence to continue in the house was terminated and original suit was filed by the plaintiff/ father seeking following reliefs:-