GURJIT KAUR Vs. NAZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from a suit for mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff-Nazar Singh against defendants-Gurjit Kaur and others which has been decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013 and appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Court of first instance i.e. appellants as defendants and respondent as plaintiff.

(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts, as pleaded by plaintiff, are to the effect that plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Pal Singh son of Sarwan Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 28.11.1988. The portion shown red in the site plan attached with the plaint was in possession of defendants and portion shown green in site plan was in his own possession. The portion shown red in the she plan had been given to defendants as licensee by plaintiff to reside in the same and to serve plaintiff. It was an oral tenancy at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The house had been given to defendants on the condition that when plaintiff would return to village after leaving his job, they would vacate the house. When plaintiff requested defendants to vacate the house in dispute and to pay the arrears, they flatly refused to do the same. The issuance of notice to vacate the house and to pay the arrears also went in vain. Hence, suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants resisted the suit and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that suit was barred by limitation because defendants had been residing in the house in dispute for the last more than 20 years; suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable; suit has been filed with a view to circumvent the provisions of law and to avoid payment of court fee; defendants have become the owners of house in dispute by way of adverse possession; since sale deed was not accompanied by delivery of possession, the same has lost its value in the eyes of law; the house was purchased by Bagga Singh, Karam Singh and Iqbal Singh but plaintiff had got executed the sale deed in his own name in a clandestine manner and thereafter construction was raised by Bagga; suit is vague as plaintiff himself is not sure whether possession of defendants is as licensees or tenants and no legal notice had been issued to terminate the licence. Or merits, it was pleaded that Karam Singh was residing at Delhi and had contributed for the purchase of house in dispute in the name of sons of Sher Singh, but plaintiff misused his position and got executed the sale deed in his own favour. Defendants are in possession of the same even prior to the execution of sale deed on 28.11.1988. Other allegations in the plaint were refuted.