GIANI HIMMAT SINGH RAMTA Vs. HARNIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants, Himmat Singh and others, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ropar, dated March 19, 1990, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge I Class, Anandpur Sahib, dated October 12, 1987, was dismissed but cross-objections were allowed and the trial Court decree was modified, resulting in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in full. The trial Court had decreed the suit for possession of the suit property except portion situated on the East of the line 'mn' extending in right angle up to line 'ef' as shown in the site plan exhibit P-31.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Harniranjan Singh is son of Himmat Singh Ramta, the appellant (defendant No. 1 ). The other defendants are wife, sons and daughters of Himmat Singh aforesaid. These sons and daughters of Himmat Singh are step-brothers and step-sisters of the plaintiff Harniranjan Singh. Plaintiff - Harniranjan Singh claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property which was given to the defendants as licensees vide license deed dated June 13, 1960. The licence deed was executed by Raghbir Singh- defendant who was acting as head of the family of the defendants. Himmat Singh was not available at that time and was away. Even otherwise the defendants had orally declared that they would be utilising the suit property as licenses of the plaintiff. Since the defendants started asserting rights of ownership the licence was revoked and the suit was filed. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession and further claimed that the defendants should not interfere with his possession. The suit was filed for permanent in-junction restraining the defendants from forcible dispossessing the plaintiff. In the alternative the plaintiff also claimed decree for possession of the suit property as owner on proof that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff during pendency of the suit.

(3.) THE trial court decided issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants. The defendants were held to be owners in possession of the property situated to the east of the line 'mn' upto the point where straight line drawn from 'mn' onwards meets line "ef" of the site plan Exhibit P-31. With respect to the remaining property, the plaintiff was held to be owner. Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants were held to be licensees. The licence deed was not forged one and the same was not null and void. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of plaintiff. The suit was properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Under issue No. 6 the suit was held to be within time. Under issue No. 7 it was held that the plaintiff was not estopped from filing the present suit. The suit was held to be maintainable under issue No. 8. Under issue No. 9 it was held that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, he was not entitled to possession except portion east of line 'mn' as shown in the site plan Exhibit P-31. The lower appellate court, as already stated above, decreed the suit with resect to the entire property.