NATHI Vs. BALIHAR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATHI had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession for the last 8/9 years over the house marked ABCDEF shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint which is forming a part of Khasra No. 33/6/3. According to him, a dispute had arisen between him and defendant No. 1 which was resolved through a family settlement, according to which, the aforesaid defendant had agreed to execute a title deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months. The plaintiff being in unlawful possession was seeking protection thereof against the attempts of the defendants to interfere with the same.

(2.) THE suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the same. The suit was bad for non -joinder of co -sharers and had been filed with the connivance with the Gram Panchayat. The defendants claim to be in exclusive possession of the site, which was possessed by them as co -sharers. They used to tether their cattle, store fodder on the property in dispute and in July/August, 1993 the plaintiff had approached the defendants with a prayer that he may be given shelter on the property in dispute as his house was leaking due to heavy rains. The plaintiff had promised to vacate the same and on this assurance, he was inducted into property as a licensee. Defendants further stated that the plaintiff did not vacate the property as per the promise though so requested to do so in December, 1993 and when he did not vacate the same even thereafter the rights as licensee were terminated. The Gram Panchayat had been approached by the defendants in the matter and had obtained signatures of the parties on blank papers. When the plaintiff refused to abide by the same the defendants were advised to take recourse to other method available to them. In these circumstances, the suit had been filed to pre -empt the claim of the defendants and writing qua execution of a mortgage sale of family settlement had been prepared fraudulently by the plaintiff in connivance with the plaintiff. Defendants further submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to remain in possession and, therefore, the claim of decree for possession be passed in their favour.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: -