SUBODH CHAND Vs. VEENA @ DR. VINOD VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subodh Chand Nayyar defendant has preferred instant second appeal after being unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) Suit was filed by respondent Dr. Vinod Veena alias Veena against appellant for mandatory injunction. Plaintiff s case is that plaintiff s father was owner in possession of house No. 52-A (52-R) situated in Model Town, Karnal vide conveyance deed dated 20.4.1962/12.5.1962. Defendant s father who was real brother of plaintiff s father was allowed to occupy the said house as licencee in the year 1980 by the plaintiff s father. After death of defendant s father, defendant continued to reside in the suit house as licencee and undertook to vacate the same as and when asked. The defendant gave different writings stating that he was occupying the suit house as licencee and shall vacate the same as and when asked. After the death of plaintiff s father, plaintiff has become owner of the suit house in view of registered Will dated 31.3.1993. The plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit house by revoking the defendant s licence but the defendant refused to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing defendant to vacate the suit house and hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant, inter-alia, pleaded that house No. EK-184 at Jalandhar was purchased for Rs. 16,500/- from the Rehabilitation Department by plaintiff s father, defendant s father and their cousin Kundan Lal. Then defendant s father out of his claim amount got adjusted Rs. 5800/- towards price of the house at Jalandhar for 1/3rd share of defendant s father in the said house. Plaintiff s father purchased the disputed house at Karnal. The defendant s father started residing in half portion (suit property) of the said house in the year 1967 as tenant and paid Rs. 70/- per month as rent to plaintiff s father for some period. However, in 1985-86, plaintiff s father and defendant s father exchanged their properties and accordingly defendant s father relinquished his 1/3rd share in house at Jalandhar in lieu of half portion of the house of plaintiff s father at Karnal. Thereafter defendant s father spent huge amount on the suit house. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit house.