LAWS(MPH)-2004-1-14

GANPAT RAO Vs. ASHOK RAO

Decided On January 27, 2004
GANPAT RAO Appellant
V/S
ASHOK RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant challenging judgment and decree dated 29-7-98 passed by 9th Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 217-A/96.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a house No. 150/50 is situated at Kudalkar Ki Goth, Kempu, Lashkar, Gwalior. Plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment in respect of portion of a house which is in possession of the present appellant. According to the plaintiff the said property was initially owned by Vitthal Rao (dead ). Vitthal Rao has four sons namely Madho Rao, Narayan Rao, Gopal Rao and Krishna Rao (all dead ). Madhav Rao has one son Keshav Rao who died in the year 1938. Narayan Rao's son Madho Rao died in the year 1941. Keshav Rao has three sons namely Ramchandra Rao, Lakshman Rao, who died on 10-6-69 and Anand Rao who was adopted by Keshav Rao.

(3.) RAMCHANDRA Rao filed a Civil Suit No. 29-A/97 for partition. In that case it was held that the suit property exclusively belongs to plaintiff Anand Rao and Ramchandra Rao is in possession of the same as a licensee. This judgment and decree was challenged by the plaintiff by filing F. A. No. 56/80 which was dismissed on 17-9-90 and L. P. A. against the said order was also filed but the order was maintained. Copies of the judgments are on record as Exs. P-l, P-3 and P-4. Thus, it has become final between the parties that plaintiff Anand Rao is the exclusive owner of the suit property and the defendant is in possession of the suit property described in Paragraph 1 of the plaint as a licensee. Defendant Ramchandra Rao was allowed to reside in this house till he construct his own house. According to the plaintiff this condition was violated by the defendant. He has not constructed any house till now. He was permitted to reside in the house all alone but he has permitted his sons and other members to reside in the suit premises and he has also constructed a 'pakka' building in the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff hence his license is revoked.