MICHAEL HERISUASAI JOSEPH Vs. CARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit as well as appeal challenging the said dismissal, the plaintiff in regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 1987 before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, nagpur, has preferred this appeal. The appeal is now being prosecuted by the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff, who died during the pendency of this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit house for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from one John Michael Carvelho under a registered sale-deed dated 28th January, 1964. The plaintiff's brothers Anthony and Chouri were also occupying the suit house with their families when the house was purchased. Anthony died in 1981 and Chouri died on 8th november, 1986. Even after their deaths, their families continued to occupy the portions of the house. The defendants are heirs of deceased anthony. Since the plaintiff's family had expanded, the plaintiff found the accommodation with him insufficient and hence he requested the family members of his brother Anthony to vacate the premises. Though they assured to do so after securing other accommodation, they avoided and hence the plaintiff issued a notice on 29th April, 1985 revoking the defendant-respondents' licence to occupy the premises. They refused to accept the notice. The plaintiff again issued the said notice under certificate of posting, to which they replied, claiming that they were the co-owners of the property. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the said suit contending that the defendants had no right to occupy the premises and, after revocation of licence with effect from 01-06-1985, they are trespassers in the property. He, therefore, prayed for a decree of ejectment and possession with a sum of Rs. 5,270/- plus notice charges of Rs. 10/- per day for the wrongful occupation. He also prayed for an enquiry into mesne profits and interest on the sums claimed.

(3.) By written statement at Exhibit 18 before the Trial Court, the defendants contended that the house was purchased with equal contribution from each of the three brothers. Therefore, they claimed to have become owners of the portion, which is in their possession. They claimed that they had been contributing to the payment of taxes also. Further, they submitted that the suit house is situated on municipal nazul land and the plaintiff too is a tenant of the municipal nazul land and, therefore, had no right to file the suit. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.