KALI RAM Vs. DAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for a decree of mandatory injunction against the appellant-defendant with a prayer that the appellant-defendant be directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant, however, controverted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff by asserting that he had been in possession of the suit property for the last 40 years and had raised construction thereupon. The trial Court as also the lower appellate Court returned concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the respondent- plaintiff was owner of the suit property and further that the appellant- defendant was only a licensee thereon.

(2.) THROUGH the instant appeal, the appellant-defendant has impugned the orders passed on 21.2.2000 and 22.11.2000 by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court respectively, decreeing the claim raised by the respondent- plaintiff.

(3.) A concurrent finding was also recorded by the courts below that the appellant-defendant Kali Ram was merely a licensee. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant could not bring to the notice of this court any evidence on the basis of which the appellant- defendant could establish any other right vis-a-vis of the suit property. That being so, there is no justification whatsoever to interfere in the finding recorded by the courts below that the appellant-defendant was in occupation of the suit property as a licensee. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.