HARBANS SINGH CHEEMA Vs. HARWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARWANT Singh, who is the maternal uncle of Harbans Singh Cheema, the sole defendant, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the purchaser and, thus, the owner of Kothi No. 130-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, described fully in the plaint and, by styling himself as owner, sought a decree for mandatory injunction under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, directing the defendant to vacate the said premises and never to interfere in future with his legal possession thereafter. This suit was decreed by Shri Baldev Singh, PCS, Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana vide his judgment and decree dated 25.4.1978. Aggrieved, defendant Harbans Singh Cheema filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has since been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide his judgment dated 4.6.1979. Still aggrieved, the defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that Harwant Singh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of Kothi No. 130-R, Model Town, Ludhiana, and Harbans Singh Cheema should vacate the said kothi. The burden of plaint is that he had purchased the property of 500 square yards vide sale-deed dated 13.5.1968, registered on 29.6.1968 from the previous owner Sohinder Singh son of Soha Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and is the owner of the said premises. Shri Sohinder Singh, in turn, had purchased the entire unit No. 130 for an amount of Rs. 11,453/- from the Rehabilitation Department in an open auction on 23.4.1950. He was granted conveyance deed on 3.5.1950, with the condition that Rs. 900/- was to be paid as earnest money on the spot, whereas, the remaining amount of sale consideration was to be paid along with 3% interest in 30 equal half yearly instalments. The title of Sohinder Singh purchaser was to be effected only on the payment of full instalments. Concededly, Sohinder Singh obtained a clearance certificate on 26.4.1868 and also obtained permission from the Rehabilitation Department to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff after clearing all the instalments. The plaintiff, being the real maternal uncle of the defendant, was persuaded by the defendant to enter into the bargain of purchase of Kothi No. 130-R. The plaintiff was then in military (Central Government) service outside Ludhiana and he relied upon the defendant in bringing about the transaction of sale in his favour. The amount of earnest money of Rs. 900/- had been paid by the plaintiff to Sohinder Singh through the defendant and subsequent instalments had been paid by the plaintiff in Rehabilitation Department through the defendant in the name of Sohinder Singh, who, after the conveyance deed issued in his favour, had agreed to sell Kothi No. 130-R, Model Town, Ludhiana in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the possession of the said kothi to the plaintiff in 1950. The defendant, it was asserted, was using the said kothi since 8.9.1956 as a mere licensee under the plaintiff. Prior to that, the defendant was leasing out the said premises to defendant tenants on behalf of the plaintiffs and rendered accounts to the plaintiff of the rent realised from the tenants. The defendant, being the sister's son of the plaintiff, had been using the kothi as a mere licensee without payment of any licence fee. The plaintiff through a registered notice dated 2.1.1971 revoked the licence of the defendant and requested him to vacate Kothi No. 130-R in his occupation within a week. The defendant did not respond to notice aforesaid, thus, constraining the plaintiff to file the suit, as mentioned above.

(2.) THE matter herein was contested by the defendant-appellant, who raised number of preliminary objections in his written statement but at this stage, all that requires to be mentioned is that he also contested the suit on the ground that he could not be a licensee and further if the plaintiff himself was not owner and thus, could not create a licence of the property, subject matter of dispute.

(3.) IN the resultant trial, as mentioned above the suit was decreed, which has since been confirmed by the appellate Court.