BALDEV DASS Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dtd. 12/5/2015 and 4/11/2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed the present suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the shop in dispute and that the defendant-respondents have no concern with the ownership rights of the said shop. Further a decree of permanent injunction was also sought. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that he had purchased the suit property from one Om Parkash vide registered sale deed No.4344 dtd. 16/3/1989. Om Parkash was the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed No.10485 dtd. 14/8/1986. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant had raised construction over the purchased property in the year 1989 and given it to the defendant-respondent No.3 on rent @ Rs.1,400.00 per month. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No.3 was not paying the rent and defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are relatives of defendant-respondent No.3 and they in collusion with each other were trying to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No.1 in which he raised various preliminary objections qua maintainability. On merits it was averred that the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that defendant-respondent No.1 was the lawful owner in possession of the shop in dispute which was constructed on a part of the plot comprised in Khasra No.800. It was further the case set up that defendant-respondent No.1 had purchased the property measuring 1 Marla out of Khasra No.800 from its previous owner, namely, Devi Daya Verma son of Roop Chand Verma who was recorded owner in possession of the same in the revenue records pursuant to the sale deed No.9320 dtd. 9/8/1989. It was further averred that the shop in dispute was purchased by defendant-respondent No.1 vide sale deed No.2692 dtd. 5/11/1990 for a consideration of Rs.4,000.00 (rupees four thousand) and thereafter the shop was constructed and let out to defendant-respondent No.3 in the year 2001. It was further the stand taken that sale deed dtd. 16/3/1989 does not relate to the plot underneath the disputed shop. Neither the plaintiff-appellant nor Om Parkash was in occupation in any capacity of the plot on which the shop had been constructed. Suit qua defendant-respondent No.2 was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/8/2013 as munadi fee was not deposited for service of summons. Defendant-respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement.