GULABRANI Vs. MUNNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia pleading that certain joint properties belonging to Shankerlal and Munnalal were partitioned and in the share obtained by Shankarlal he had constructed as many as 9 rooms. According to them, in the year 1980 Munnalal made a request to the plaintiffs to give one room to him so that they could do the things properly. The defendant also assured the plaintiffs that he would adjust his tenant Laxman after constructing one room for him. According to them, on 2.7.1993 a process server came to them and asked for possession of the said room and the other 2 rooms.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the present non -applicant had fradulently obtained an order for possession but as they are the owners of the property they cannot be dispossessed from the said 2 rooms which are in their possession. The defendant inter alia submitted that 3 rooms were exclusive property of the defendent and the same were constructed by him after the partition. He also pleaded that Laxman was his tenant and he has obtained a decree against Laxman, he is entitled to execute the decree and obtain the possession. The trial Court after hearing the parties found that the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction in relation to the said 2 rooms which are in their exclusive possession. Being aggrieved by the said order the non -applicant filed the appeal which was allowed by the appellate Court and the injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated. The applicants have filed this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.