BASANT KAUR Vs. AJMER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 14.09.2011 whereby suit of the plaintiff -respondent for permanent injunction was decreed and appellants were restrained from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff -respondent from the house in dispute illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. A further challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2012 of the first appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant -appellants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) AS per the averments, the plaintiff -respondent, who is widow of Darshan Singh brother of Sukhdev Singh (predecessor -ininterest of the appellants), is owner in possession of the house in dispute and the defendant wanted to oust her from the house in dispute illegally and without due course of law. It was further averred that earlier also, the defendant got filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction from his father Karnail Singh against her, which was dismissed, and now the defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in dispute. Hence the suit.

(3.) UPON notice, defendant -Sukhdev Singh appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, relationship of the parties was admitted, however, it was pleaded that the plaintiff -respondent is not concerned with the house in dispute and the defendant is owner in possession of the house in dispute which belonged to his father. He used to look after his father, who executed a registered Will dated 20.11.1998 in his favour and since then, the defendant was owner in possession of the said house. Refuting the remaining allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the allegations levelled in the written statement to be incorrect while reiterating the averments made in the plaint being correct. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: