KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-appellant is in regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 17.04.2013 and dated 17.04.2014 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula as well as Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby suit of the plaintiffrespondent for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits was decreed and appeal of the defendant-appellant was dismissed. Facts as culled out from the plaint, are that the plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for possession of House No.864, Sector 12, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') and recovery of damages/ mesne profits. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiffrespondent is the owner of the disputed house which was initially allotted to Col. Ravinder Iqbal Singh and from whom the plaintiffrespondent had purchased and the Estate Officer, HUDA vide Ex.P1 issued re-allotment letter in his favour. Subsequently, conveyance deed was also executed in his favour. Then plaintiff-respondent spent huge amount of money on the construction of the house. Construction was supervised by his father because plaintiff was staying abroad. His father was residing in suit property (house) as a licensee.

(2.) As per the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent, in March, 2006, he came to India for completing the renovation work of the suit property, where his family members i.e. wife and two minor children were residing in it and prior thereto i.e. in November, 2005, his father Nandu Ram alias Nand Lal had shifted to House No.180, Sector 19, Panchkula and he took all the valuable articles and household articles with him. Plaintiff was living in the suit property peacefully, but defendant started interfering in his possession and threatened to take illegal and forcible possession of the suit property. It was alleged in the plaint that on 20.05.2006, plaintiff-respondent had left for Iran for his job and shifted his family to Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in his in-laws house as it was not safe for his family to reside in the garage portion of said house because of on going renovation in the remaining portion. It was also alleged that appellant-defendant instigated his father, who lodged false and frivolous FIR No.136 dated 02.04.2006 against him in P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the appellant-defendants. In the written statement, by taking a stand that it is Shri Nand Lal @ Nandu i.e. father of the plaintiff, who, had constructed the house and was actually the real owner of the house. As per written statement Shri Nand Lal @ Nandu i.e. father of parties to the lis had filed a civil suit of permanent injunction against plaintiff for defending his rights of ownership and possession. Actually, he was the owner in possession of suit property and defendant was residing with him since December, 1986. Expenses of construction were borne by Shri Nandu Ram. He had purchased disputed plot from Col. Ravinder Iqbal Singh and had received its possession from vendor. Plaintiff tricked his father into getting the plot transferred in his name. Shri Nandu Ram was an old and infirm man, who believed plaintiff and therefore got disputed plot transferred in the name of plaintiff. It was averred that Shri Nand Lal was the real owner and not licensee. The claim of plaintiff was disputed and denied. It was pointed out that no construction material was lying at the spot, meaning thereby that no renovation was being carried out in suit property. Plaintiff never resided in suit property, but he resided in Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Father of plaintiff never shifted in House No.180, Sector 19. Allegations qua FIR No.136 were also denied and it was claimed that the matter was compounded because Shri Nandu Ram took mercy on plaintiff, who was pressurizing him to withdraw the case. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied in toto. Replication was not filed. Ultimately, from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were initially framed by the trial Court:-