HARI CHAND Vs. MANISH SATIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession and permanent injunction has been decreed.

(2.) IN short, the case of the plaintiffs is that Smt. Mayawanti was the owner in possession of the house marked by letters AEFD, shown in red and green colours in the site plan, situated in ward no.8, Garhshankar. It was purchased by her from the Department of Rehabilitation for a sum of Rs. 2,500/ -. The sale certificate dated 22.01.1966 was issued by the Managing Officer (Sales), Jalandhar. The property bears plot no.B -II -186 which was constructed by Mayawanti. She executed a registered Will dated 15.09.2000 in favour of all the plaintiffs bequeathing the property in dispute to them in equal shares. She disinherited the defendants through a publication in "Punjab Kesari" newspaper because of their behaviour. It is also pleaded that she died on 01.07.2001, whereas her husband Uttam Chand pre -deceased her in the year 1991. It is also alleged that defendants no.1 and 2 were inducted as licensee in March 1992. Mayawanti filed ejectment petition against them in which her title over the property was disputed. She withdrew the petition and filed suit for possession on 04.08.2000 but during the pendency of the suit, she died and suit was dismissed undecided. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to vacate the demised premises and on their oral refusal, terminated the license on 01.07.2002 and filed the present suit.

(3.) IN the written statement, besides taking preliminary objections, the ownership of Mayawanti was denied and it was alleged that Uttam Chand was the owner of the property in dispute. It was alleged that even if the sale certificate is proved, it would be a Benami transaction as the house was allotted to Uttam Chand who had paid the amount because Mayawanti had no source of income to purchase the house as she herself was dependent upon her husband. They also denied raising of construction of the house by Mayawanti. It was rather alleged that they were all living in the joint family but could not pull on together and a family settlement was effected on 26.11.1990 as per which house was divided into three portions. Western portion came to the share of defendant no.1, middle portion to the other son and eastern portion fell to the share of Harkishan Lal, predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs. It is also alleged that at that time building was in dilapidated condition which has been got repaired by the defendants. They also denied that they have been disinherited by Mayawanti by way of publication in the newspaper rather it is alleged that the Will, if any, is a result of fraud and undue influence. They have not denied the death of Uttam Chand but it is denied that they have been inducted as a licensee by Mayawanti.