POORAN CHAND Vs. PHOOLWATI AND 3 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for possession with the allegation in the plaint that the defendant-appellant was allowed to live in the house owned exclusively by her, by her Jeth, and that defendant was living in house as a licencee. It has been pleaded that defendant-appellant has now started harassing the plaintiff-respondent, who is an old lady and after certain other portions of house was vacated by sitting tenant, defendant-appellant has increased his area of possession by including the rooms, which got vacated by other sitting tenants. It has claimed that his licence has been revoked, and now the status of defendant-appellant is of unauthorized occupant. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant, who stated that he is the son of plaintiff-respondent and that the property itself is joint family property, though it was purchased in the name of plaintiff-respondent, and that plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the house. Trial court for the purposes of adjudication of the suit framed as many as 8 issues. Issue no.1 was framed on the question as to whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the house and issue no.3 was framed on the question as to whether the defendant is the son of plaintiff-respondent with her husband late Radhey Shyam Sharma. Other issues were also framed. Parties led their oral and documentary evidence in respect of their claim. Trial court on the basis of evidence and materials brought on record returned a finding that the defendant-appellant is not the son of plaintiff-respondent and issue no.3 was answered accordingly. A further finding was returned that the plaintiff-respondent is exclusive owner of the house and after adjudicating other questions, plaintiff-respondent's suit was decreed by the trial court.

(2.) The judgment and decree of the trial court was carried in appeal, wherein the decree of trial court was modified and the decree of eviction against defendant-appellant from the entire house has been substituted with that of the area specified and claimed in the plaint itself. Except for the aforesaid modification the findings returned by the trial court on various issues have been maintained by the appellate court. Thus aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant submits that documentary evidence was brought on record on behalf of the defendant-appellant to show that he was the son of plaintiff-respondent, which has been ignored. It has further been argued that the status of plaintiff-respondent has been shown as that of an unauthorized occupant/licencee and a tenant which is contradictory. Submission is that inherent contradiction in the plea of plaintiff-respondent has been ignored, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be entertained.