DOCTOR PARSHOTAM KUMAR Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the portion of house situated in Yadvinder Colony, Patiala against their son and daughter-in-law.

(2.) AFTER the death of Parkash Wati, her son and daughter were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Brij Bhushan Lal and plaintiff No. 3 Sneh Lata have died during the pendency of the present appeal. Sons and daughters of Sneh Lata have been ordered to be impleaded to represent the estate of deceased plaintiff No. 3, however, in respect of plaintiff No. 1 they were impleaded as legal representative on March 26, 2004 on the basis of registered Will dated 25.6.1979 executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of his daughter Sneh Lata. Such application was opposed by the present appellant on the ground that the Will dated 25.6.1979 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The legal representatives were ordered to be impleaded to represent the estate or deceased plaintiff No. 1 for the purpose of representing the estate of deceased in the present proceedings with liberty to the legal representatives to settle their rights by way of independent proceedings.

(3.) THE defendant-appellants denied the allegations of purchase of the plots by the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the construction of the house was made with the joint funds of the family. It was alleged that the defendants are in possession of the portion of the house as co-owner of the house. Both the courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the possession of the defendant-appellants is that of a licensee and thus, a decree for mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.