SUDHIR BANSAL Vs. GIRISH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This FAFO has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the trial court directing to pay the ad-valorem court fees.

(2.) Heard Shri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri K. Shailendra for the respondents.

(3.) Undisputed facts are that suit property, which is in the nature of the shop was purchased by one Premwati, the mother of the appellant no. 1 and defendant-respondent by means of two sale deeds dated 11.01.1969 and 29.05.1974. The shop was given to the defendant-respondent by Smt. Premwati on licence for running a business. Subsequently, the suit property was transferred in favour of plaintiff-appellants by means of registered sale deed dated 09.12.2009. After purchase of the property by the plaintiff-appellants, a legal notice dated 26.03.2010 was served upon the defendant-respondent to handover possession of the same. Thereafter, he filed a suit claiming mandatory injunction for possession. A decree for damages was also claimed. Suit was filed on the allegations that Smt. Premwati, the erstwhile owner transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-appellants by means of a registered sale deed. The licence of defendant-respondent, who was in possession as licensee of Smt. Premwati, was revoked by means of a notice dated 26.03.2010 by the plaintiff-appellants. Proceedings were contested by the defendant-respondent by filing a written statement denying the plaint allegations.