PARDEEP Vs. BIJENDER SINGH @ VIJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal of the plaintiff respondent was accepted and suit filed by him for possession of the suit land was decreed.

(2.) As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that he is owner of the suit property and has made construction over its western portion measuring 4 marlas whereas remaining 4 marlas of land on the eastern portion is vacant. The defendant-appellant in the month of Dec., 2002 requested him, to allow the use of the house for a short period. Considering the difficulties and hardship of the appellant, he agreed to give his house for a short period presuming that the appellant shall vacate it after departure of his relatives. However, the appellant did not vacate the suit property in spite of repeated requests. Since the appellant had no concern, interest or title with regard to the suit property, he was liable to be evicted and the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the possession. The plaintiff-respondent also claimed mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and resisted the suit and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, he denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff respondent over the suit property. It was pleaded that forefathers of the appellant had taken possession of the suit land and had got permanently settled therein. It was specifically stated that the suit land was occupied by the father of the appellant in June, 1970 and immediately thereafter, construction was made and he started living therein. The plaintiff was well aware of the construction of the house by the defendant's father and it was also known to the original owner of the suit property, namely, Mangli Ram son of Tula Ram. It was further submitted that the defendant-appellant had become owner in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent in collusion with Mangli Ram had procured a Will dated 28.6.2002 in order to grab the suit property and the same does not confer any right upon the plaintiff-respondent because the defendant had already become owner of the suit property. Denying other allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed.