RATTAN CHAND Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 1978 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by which the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1975, passed by Sub Judge Second Class, Hoshiarpur, was up held.

(2.) Mehar Chand respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 100/- as arrears of rent and in the alternative as compensation for use and occupation of the shop described in the head note of the plaint and he also sued for possession of the shop alleging himself to be the owner of the shop in dispute. In his plaint, Mehar Chand averred that about six years ago, appellant took property in dispute from him at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and agreed to pay the rent on the first of every month but has not paid the rent of the property since 1st May, 1969 and as such Rs. 106/- were due from him as arrears of rent. In the alternative, he pleaded that in case defendant is not held as tenant, under the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is en titled to recover Rs. 100/- as compensation regarding the use and occupation of the suit property and for possession of the same.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit and stated that it has not been properly valued for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. The correctness of the site plan was not within time. On merits, it was pleaded that the property in suit along with other properties was joint Hindu coparcenary property of which the plaintiff was a Karta after the death of the father of the parties. It was further pleaded that shop in dispute is the exclusive property of the defendant as a family settlement was made in this respect and oral arbitration by Sarvshri Ved Parkash, Bhim Sain, Babu Ram, Manohar Lal and Jagat Ram, was made as a result of which the shop in dispute was given to the defendant along with upper storey and verandah through award. It was also pleaded that the family settlement and "the award were duly acted upon and the defendant is in possession of the shop in dispute as a result thereof."