RAM KISHAN Vs. BHAGWAN SARUP NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction with a prayer that the appellant-defendant be directed to hand over possession to him, of the demised premises description of which was given in his plaint. He also claimed Rs. 3,900/- towards mesne profits for use and occupation of the said property by the appellant. It was case of the respondent that he was owner of house No. 5912-13. Appellant is his real cousin and as such, he had inducted him as a licencee in two rooms, one on northeast corner and the other on the southwest of the property, in dispute. Thereafter, when the appellant started mis-behaving the respondent by issuing notice to him on 27.9.1991 revoked his licence. Even then appellant has failed to vacate portion of the house in question. Respondent further claimed mesne profit @ Rs. 200 per month for use and occupation of the demised premises by the appellant.

(2.) UPON notice, appellant put in appearance and controverted all allegations levelled by the respondent in his plaint. It was case of the appellant that the suit property is exclusively in continuous peaceful possession of the defendant for the last more than 50 years as its owner without paying any rent to anybody including the plaintiff. It was denied that he was ever inducted as a licencee by the respondent. It was further stated that the respondent never came in possession of the property, in dispute, in any capacity. It was also averred that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. Respondent filed replication wherein he controverted the plea raised by the appellant in his written statement and reiterated the averments made by him in his plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) SHRI R.S. Longia, Advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that without referring to the documents brought on record by the appellant and also other evidence on record, appellate Court below has reversed the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. He further asserted that even findings given by the trial Court regarding ownership were not justified in view of evidence on record. Shri Longia, by referring to evidence of the respondent contended that there is no corroborative evidence to prove that the respondent is owner of the property in dispute. He has further stated that in view of the facts of this case, suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. He also argued that the Courts below have wrongly relied upon judgment of the Rent Controller Ex. P-9, as the appellant was not a party in those proceedings. Furthermore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide question of title amongst the parties. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, judgment and decree under challenge be set aside.