RAMESH KUMAR Vs. VIPIN BAJAJ & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant who has remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below and his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that his father, Sant Ram was owner in possession of the suit property and he purchased the same along with his brother, Naresh Kumar, performa defendant No.3, vide sale deed No.5512 dated 24.03.2005 for sale consideration of Rs.71,000/-. It was accordingly pleaded that they were owner in possession since the said date and they were receiving rent from the tenant Surinder Sharma. Defendants No.1 & 2 were threatening the plaintiff and interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property without any right and are continuing to do so, and accordingly, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants opposed the civil suit by filing written statement taking various objections including maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties, concealment of true facts, locus standi and misuse and abuse of process of law. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and the father of the plaintiff, Sant Ram son of Khan Chand was not owner of the said shop and the question of selling the same did not arise and the sale deed was a result of fraud and cheating. It was contended that defendant No.1 was owner of shop No.673 and Khan Chand Bajaj, grand father of defendant No.1 was the owner who executed a registered will dated 17.06.1998 in his favour. Khan Chand Bajaj expired on 13.05.2004 and the name of defendant No.1 had been entered in the records of Municipal Council Sirhind and he had been collecting rent from Surinder Sharma who has been tenant in the said shop. Defendant No.1 had also filed an application for eviction of Surinder Sharma under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which is pending before the Rent Controller, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.