KRANTI KUMAR Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellantdefendant being aggrieved by a judgment and decree dated 3.11.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.9-A of 2005, Mahendra Kumar and two others Vs. Kranti Kumar.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiffs preferred a suit for eviction, possession and for mesne profit in respect of house and land situated at E-31, HIG Colony Pandit Ravishankar Shukl Nagar, Indore against the defendant. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 is the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and the plaintiff No.1 is the real brother of the sole defendant. It was also averred in the plaint that the house was purchased by Shri Anil Kumar Pandya who is the real brother of plaintiff No.1 and the sole defendant Kranti Kumar. Shri Anil Kumar Pandya deposited the installments/consideration with the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and House was sold to him on 7.4.76. Finally a sale deed was executed by the Housing Board in favour of Anil Kumar Pandya on 5.4.1991. The house was sold by Anil Kumar Pandya to the plaintiffs namely Mahendra Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Rajeev Kumar on 20.11.2000 and the name of the plaintiffs was mutated in the revenue records as well as the records maintained by the Indore Municipal Corporation. It has further been stated that the present appellant/defendant was permitted to reside in the house by the predecessor-in-title namely Anil Kumar Pandya and after the sale deeds were executed in favour of Mahendra Kumar and his two sons, a request was made by the present respondents to the appellant to vacate the house.

(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Arundhati Mishra (Smt.) Vs. Shriram Charitra Pandey, 1994 1 MPWN 216 has held that plea of adverse possession is inconsistent to the plea of ownership. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held as under :-