ATMA RAM Vs. JETHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10. 1. 1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, by which the appeal tiled by the plaintiff respondent was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 27. 9. 1975 was set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for possession of the house, in dispute. According to the plaintiff, he purchased this house from its original owner Nandu, through registered sale deed dated 21. 10. 1946 and obtained its actual physical possession from its vendor. The plaintiff alleged that, about 4 years ago, he leased out this house to the defendant appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-and, since then, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came into being ; that since the defendant did not pay the rent for a period of 2 years and 7 months, therefore, the plaintiff filed an ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent but, since the defendant pleaded therein that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, so, that application was withdrawn ; and that the possession of the defendant over the disputed house, being in the nature of a tres-passer, was illegal.

(3.) THE defendant-appellant contested the suit and pleaded that the house in his occupation was never purchased by the plaintiff respondent, nor Nandu was its owner ; that he had purchased the house, in dispute, from Om Parkash son of Mangat Ram through registered sale deed dated 18. 6. 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 3500/and, since then, he has been occupying the house as owner ; that Om Parkash was previously in possession of the house as owner and he got it built ; that the plaintiff-respondent was never in possession of the disputed house or the land underneath it within 12 years prior to the filing of the present suit, whereas the defendant-appellant has been in its occupation since 18. 6. 1956 and, prior to that, Om Parkash was occupying the same ; and that, therefore, the possession of the defendant-appellant was adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiff- respondent. The other pleas taken by the defendant-appellant were that the plaintiff-respondent was estopped from asserting his ownership and the suit was barred by the principles of res-judicaia.