LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-5

ASHOK KUMAR LATE SHRI SITARAM VERMAKRISHNA CHAND LATE SHRI HUKUM Vs. KRISHNA CHAND LATE SHRI HUKUM CHAND AGRAWAL RAJ KUMAR LATE SHRI

Decided On May 09, 2006
ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI SITARAM VERMAKRISHNA CHAND S/O LATE SHRI HUKUM Appellant
V/S
KRISHNA CHAND S/O LATE SHRI HUKUM CHAND AGRAWAL, RAJ KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred at the instance of defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff for declaration and possession which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) IN brief the suit of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is that one Hukum Chand, who is the father of plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 31. 7. 1941. Initially a plot was purchased and thereafter the house was constructed on it. Thereafter another Plot No. 21/2 was purchased by registered sale-deed dated 6. 2. 1945 and this plot was re-numbered as Plot No. 21/1. The name of Hukum Chand was also mutated in the Nazul records. A flour mill was installed on the disputed property. Thereafter the father of plaintiff acquired Plot No. 19/2 under a lease dated 17. 9. 1946 from the Nazul Department. In this manner father of plaintiff became owner and was possessing the entire house and site comprised in Plot Nos. 21/1/, 21/2 and 19/2 together with the structures standing thereon.

(3.) AS per the case of plaintiff in the year 1949-50 the father of plaintiff put one Sitaram (father of defendants) in the possession of house standing on Plot No. 21/2 in which there was firstly a flour mill and subsequently oil crusher. Said Sitaram was inducted as a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. The tenancy was oral and the exact date of tenancy is not known to the plaintiff. It has also been pleaded in para 10 of the plaint that subsequently Plot Nos. 21/1, 21/2 and 19/2 together with the houses standing thereon were allotted to plaintiffs share in the family partition between Hukum Chand and his sons and there was a registered partition deed dated 25. 1. 1956. Thus, in this manner plaintiff became owner of the disputed property right from 1956 and his name was also mutated in the Nazul records.