DEEPAK WALIA Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Akshay Bhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant is in possession of the suit property, and therefore, he should not be dispossessed by the respondents, except in due course of law.

(2.) Further, the learned counsel, on instructions from the appellant, who is present in Court, specifically gives up his claim to the tenancy of the property in question. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from Vinod Kumar and Satish Kumar, says that since the partition proceedings are already pending between the parties, therefore, the respondents shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, except in due course of law.

(3.) This statement of Mr. K.S. Dadwal fully satisfies the appellant. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from the parties themselves, the present appeal is disposed of and it is directed that the appellant- Deepak Walia shall not be dispossessed from the property in question, except in due course of law. It is further made clear that the claim of any tenancy rights in the suit property have been specifically given up by the appellant during the course of the present appeal.