RAMESH VERMA Vs. MADAN GOPAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 2409 of 2009

(2.) This is second appeal by plaintiff Ramesh Verma who has remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(3.) Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the disputed shop having purchased it vide registered sale deed dated 14.11.1991. However, the defendant fraudulently obtained judgment and decree dated 11.3.1996 in civil suit no. 82 of 1996 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Camp Court at Pehowa, on the basis of alleged family settlement which never took place between the parties. On the basis of said judgment and decree, the defendant who has no right, title or interest over the suit property came to the disputed shop with some strangers armed with deadly weapons and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that judgment and decree dated 11.3.1996 passed in civil suit no. 82 of 1996 are illegal, null and void etc. and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff who is owner in possession of the suit property and the defendant has no right, title or interest therein. Plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from dispossessing him therefrom and from alienating the same. The defendant, interalia, pleaded that he is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of family settlement which took place on 22.6.1995 between the parties and as per family settlement, the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit property to the defendant. The plaintiff herein himself appeared in civil suit no. 82 of 1996 (filed by defendant herein) and filed written statement admitting the claim of present defendant and also made statement in the court to the same effect and thereupon judgment and decree dated 11.3.1996 were rightly passed. Plaint allegations have been denied by the defendant. Defendant also filed counter claim alleging that the plaintiff is occupying the disputed shop as licencee. The defendant, accordingly, claimed mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant.