MOHINDER SINGH @ HARMINDER Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.1/appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby suit for possession filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide its judgment and decree dated 24.01.2012.

(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for possession of a house bearing number MCY No.BIX 864 constructed on plot no.5 & 6 measuring 70' x 60'. It was pleaded that defendant no.2 is wife of defendant no.1 and sister of plaintiff no.1 and defendant nos.3 & 4 are nephews of plaintiff no.1 and cousins of plaintiff no.2. It was stated that plaintiffs live in England and periodically visit India and had raised construction on the suit property. However, as they were residing away, defendant no.1 was entrusted to look after the suit property and defendant no.2 was acting as an agent/trustee of the plaintiffs.

(3.) However, intention of defendant no.1 got malafide in 1992 and a suit was filed by him on 10.01.1992 for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.02.1992. It was further averred that the defendants had admitted ownership of the plaintiffs, as plaintiff no.1 made statement to the effect that he will not interfere in possession of defendant no.1 and thereafter the suit was withdrawn by defendant no.1 without getting any declaration whatsoever from the court. The plaintiffs further averred that according to the compromise affected between the parties, the defendant was either to hand over the actual physical possession to the plaintiffs or were to get the title deed executed in favour of defendant nos.3 & 4 on or before 10.02.1993. The intention of defendant nos.1,3 & 4 became malafide and they did not get the sale deed executed. In this regard a legal notice dated 14.01.1993 was served which was replied by defendant nos.3 & 4 stating that they had no good relations with their parents and the suit property was purchased with the funds of their mother and they also alleged that defendant no.1 is in possession over the same. Hence the present suit was filed.