ROMESH CHANDER Vs. VED PARKASH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant's suit for recovery of possession of H. No. 1668, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh and for the recovery of Rs. 18,000/- by way of damages for use and occupations of the said house having been dismissed by the learned trial Court and her appeal before the learned lower appellate Court having met the same fate, she has come to this Court in the present second appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) Gurmail Singh purchased plot No. 10(R.P. 8745) in Sector 7-C, measuring 249.375 square yards from Shri Ram Sarup. He took a loan for the construction of house on this plot. The house constructed on this plot was given number 1668. He committed default in the re-payment of the loan. On July 17, 1963, Gurmail Singh entered into an agreement for the sale of the house to the defendant Mr. Ram Rakha Kapoor and even executed a power of attorney in his favour. Gurmail Singh sent two notices dated January 29, 1965 and October 19, 1966 to Mr. Kapoor alleging breach of contract and the power of attorney was cancelled. These two notices are on record as Exhibits D-9 and D-10. Thereafter, in December, 1966, Gurmail Singh executed a sale-deed in respect of the house in favour of Inder Singh and Amar Lal Batra for an amount of Rs. 55,000/-. Almost two years later, on October 13, 1969, Bhagwanti purchased the house from Inder Singh and Amar Lal Batra. A copy of the sale- deed is on record as Execution P-2. Having purchased the house, Bhagwanti instituted the suit for possession of the house. She having died, the appeal has been filed through her son Romesh Chander as her sole legal representative.

(3.) Defendant - Ram Rakha Kapoor contested the suit. He pleaded that the house was incomplete when Gurmail Singh had executed the agreement of sale on July 17,1963 in his favour. He was given possession of the house and power of attorney was also executed in his favour to complete the construction at his own cost. The liability to repay the loan taken by Gurmail Singh was also taken over and met by him. He had incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 50,000/- in completing the house and meeting the loan liability. Gurmail Singh had failed to execute the sale-deed in his favour in spite of the fact that he had performed his part of the contract. He also averred that the alleged sale- deed in favour of Inder Singh and Amar Singh Batra was a sham transaction and they were introduced with the ulterior motive of harassing him. According to the defendant-respondent, no title could have passed to Inder Singh and Amar Lal Batra and as such, plaintiff-appellant had no right in the property. Objection regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation as also the valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction were also raised by the defendant-respondent.