KIRAN @ MANDEEP KAUR Vs. TEJINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 1010 of 2012 and R. S. A. No. 1011 of 2012 -both titled Kiran @ Mandeep Kaur vs. Tejinder Kaur and another because both these appeals have arisen out of a single suit. Both these appeals have been filed by defendant No. 1.

(2.) Suit was filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff Tejinder Kaur against appellant-defendant No. 1 and against proforma respondent No. 2 Kirpal Kaur as defendant No. 2. This is unfortunate litigation among family members. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are both daughters-in-law of Kirpal Kaur. Plaintiff's case is that she is owner of the entire suit house having purchased it from her father-in-law Jaswant Singh i.e. also father-in-law of defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 2, vide registered sale deed dated 21.10.1997. Suit house was self acquired property of Jaswant Singh, who had purchased it vide sale deed dated 16.05.1966. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. They are licensees of suit portion of the house depicted in red colour in the site plan. Their license has been revoked. However, they failed to vacate the suit portion and to pay use and occupation charges for the same. Accordingly, plaintiff sought possession of the suit portion and also claimed recovery of Rs. 36,000/- as use and occupation charges for three years @ Rs. 1,000/- per month along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum, amounting to Rs. 12,960/- till filing of the suit.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their separate but somewhat similar written statements, controverted the claim of the plaintiff. It was alleged that suit property is joint Hindu family property and is jointly possessed by all the members of the family. Jaswant Singh, his both sons Satnam Singh and Rajinder Singh and wife Kirpal Kaur have been in possession of the suit property for the last so many years. Husband of defendant No. 1 also contributed from his own resources towards joint family funds. Plot under the suit house was purchased from joint family funds in the name of Jaswant Singh karta. House was constructed later on by husband of defendant No. 1 from his own funds. Satnam Singh - husband of defendant No. 1 has filed Civil Suit challenging the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant suit was liable to be stayed under 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC). It was, however, admitted that defendants are residing in portions of the suit house. It was pleaded that no portion of the house is in possession of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that whereabouts of Jaswant Singh are not known since the registration of the alleged sale deed, which might be result of fraud, coercion etc.