JASPAL SINGH Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the defendant - respondents challenging the judgement and decree of the trial Court dated 20.1.2010 has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff -appellant has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed the instant suit for possession of the suit property alleging that he and his brother Jagir Singh were co - allottees of the suit property along with Rajinder Kaur, their sister, who got married and shifted to her matrimonial home, whereas, the plaintiff along with his brother Jagir Singh continued to live in the suit property along with their families. Subsequently, Jagir Singh shifted out of Chandigarh along with his family in connection with his service and the physical possession of the suit property came to the plaintiff. Thereafter, Jagir Singh never came back and is missing. Even his wife has got herself settled with her parents. Defendant No.1 is the real brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to allow defendant No.1 to live in one room of the suit property. After sometime when defendant No.1 was approached for vacating the room, he refused to do the same. It is the further case of the appellant that on the intervening night of 31.5 2002/1.6.2002 defendant No.1 had forcibly entered into the the front and middle side rooms after breaking open the locks in his absence and thus, he is in unauthorised possession of the suit property.

(3.) DEFENDANT -respondent No.1 contested the suit by filing the written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was stated that the tenement in question was allotted on leasehold basis for 99 years and there was no provision for co -allottee. It was further stated that the said tenement was allotted in the name of Jagir Singh only and the plaintiff had no locus/right in the suit property. It was further stated that Jagir Singh had shifted out of Chandigarh along with his family in connection with his service and the plaintiff never resided in the house in question and came into possession of the suit property and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.