SITA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. SHEELA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court whereby the suit for mandatory injunction qua directing the appellants-defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property is decreed and appeal filed against the same by the appellant-defendant has also been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submits that the appellant had also filed a counter claim by taking the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 owing to the fact that in the written statement it was categorically stated that the appellants-defendants had become owner of 50% of the suit property by way of sale deed dated 19.3.1984 Ex. D-4. The counter claim has also been dismissed. He further submits with regard to the share of 50% an agreement to sell dated 23.1.1985 had also been entered into between the respondents-plaintiffs and appellants-defendants. Copy of the same is annexed as Ex.D-1. Both the courts below have committed illegality and perversity in not referring to the aforementioned documents and granted decree of mandatory injunction rendering the appellants-defendants as licensee, thus submits that following questions of law arise for determination by this Court and possession is admittedly with the appellants-defendants.

(3.) Mr. Kunal Dawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the courts below have not committed any illegality and perversity and the orders have been passed on the basis of the documents Ex.D-1 to D-4. Therefore, no substantial question of law arise for determination by this court and no interference is warranted.