VED PAL ALIAS VEDU Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant, challenging the Judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession on the ground that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the house in question by virtue of civil Court decree dated 27-4-1992, whereby his father had suffered the said decree in his favour. It was alleged that the defendants had forcibly entered into house in dispute and plaintiff has been dispossessed illegally. Suit was contested by the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff was not son of the father of the defendant and that the alleged decree dated 27-4-1992 was obtained by the plaintiff by impersonating the father of the defendant and as a result of fraud. It was alleged that the plaintiff was neither owner, nor in possession of the house in question and was not dispossessed. It was alleged that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property or with the family of the defendant or his father. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that Darshan Lal, plaintiff was owner of the house in question and was entitled to seek its possession from the defendant. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge. Now the defendant has filed the present regular second appeal in this Court.

(3.) It has been submitted before me by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the civil Court decree in favour of Darshan Lal plaintiff could not be made the basis for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the said decree was not registered and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to seek possession of the house in question from the defendant. Reliance was placed on the authorities, Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807 and Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996 SC 196.