HARJINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful defendants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.2015 passed by Shri Lalit Kumar Singla, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide which the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed by Shri Amit Thind, the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff Tarsem Lal filed suit for permanent injunction pleading therein that he is owner in possession of the land fully described in the head note of the plaint and shown in the rough site plan. Defendant No.2 is the real brother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff and wife of defendant No.2. The house in question was given to the defendants as a licencee for some period at the request of the defendant No.2, as the plaintiff was residing abroad but when the plaintiff revoked the licence of the defendant No.2 to remain in the house in dispute and asked him to vacate the house, then the defendant No.2 got filed a suit against the plaintiff and his wife titled as Harjinder Kaur vs. Tarsem Lal and others and is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kapurthala and is fixed for 17.1.2008 for the evidence of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 filed suit on the basis of false facts, which has been denied by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is actual owner in possession of the house in dispute. The attorney of the plaintiff approached the defendant again and requested them that he did not want to keep the defendants as licencee in the house in dispute and the plaintiff has already revoked the licence as mentioned in the earlier paras but of no use. Hence this suit.

(3.) On notice defendants appeared and filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections as to maintainability and locus standi or cause of action. The plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct, omission and commission to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the real facts from this Court, knowingly and willfully with mala-fide intention, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the suit. In fact, the defendants are in continuous possession of the house in dispute. The defendants are owners of the super structure of the house constructed over the land measuring 6 marlas, as the same has been got constructed by the defendants by spending huge money from their own pocket. Defendant No.2 worked abroad and earned handsome money and the said amount was sent to defendant No.1, who has raised the construction over the plot in question. Even the defendants have also got installed an electric meter in the house in dispute, which is running in the name of defendant No.1 and the consumption charges thereof are also being paid by the defendants. The defendants have constructed three rooms and one Varandaha. The defendants have also sown guava tree, Deg tree and neem tree. The land underneath the house in dispute was purchased jointly by the defendants and plaintiff, but the plaintiff being clever person and being elder brother got registration of the said land in his name by playing fraud upon the defendants. The suit is bad in the eyes of law and is against the principle of res-judicata.