SUBODH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 96 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 1213 of 2014 Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. Subodh Kumar Agarwal against judgment and decree dtd. 1/7/2019 passed by the court of Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Agra, whereby plaintiff 's suit for the relief of mandatory injunction has been partially decreed. Plaint Case

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Manoj Kumar Agarwal filed O.S. No.1213 of 2014 with the averments that he was the owner of the entire property No. 25/161, Santosh Bhawan, Gandhinagar, By-pass road, Agra by virtue of the registered gift deeds dtd. 6/7/2009 and 9/5/2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, in his favour. He further submitted that much before execution of the above registered gift deeds, the defendant had been occupying a portion of the above property on first floor towards South shown by letters 'ABCDEF' and a staircase, as shown in the map attached with the plaint, as licencee on behalf of his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari. After the execution of the above registered gift deeds, the plaintiff became owner of the entire above-mentioned property including the property in the occupation of the defendant, in which the defendants occupation was under the permission of plaintiff, merely as licencee. The defendant is the real brother of the plaintiff. For the past some time, the plaintiff was asking the defendant to vacate the property in suit but the defendant was not willing as such, plaintiff through his counsel Shri Navin Kumar Gupta, Advocate served upon the defendant by registered post A.D. a notice dtd. 4/8/2014, revoking the permission/licence granted to the defendant in respect of the disputed property, which was duly served upon the defendant but he failed to comply as such, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for the relief of mandatory injunction.

(3.) The plaintiff further averred that at present, the disputed premises could be easily let out at the rent of Rs.30,000.00 per month, as such, pendentilite and future mesne profits were claimed by the plaintiff at the above-mentioned rate.