VIJAY KUMAR Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal was originally filed by Siri Ram Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar and M/s. Vijay Agencies, Nakodar assailing judgment dated 5-9-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by which the appeal filed by them against judgment and decree dated 9-8-1991 rendered by Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Nakodar had been dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, Siri Ram Aggarwal died and his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dharam Pal respondent had filed a suit for possession by making a claim that he had purchased two properties situated at Nakodar vide two sale deeds dated 24-4-1959 and 12-6-1959 and, thus, became the owner of the same. He had raised construction on the said properties and in 1964, he proceeded to United Kingdom. At that point of time, he had handed over the possession of these properties to his father, who was living along with his other son Siri Ram Aggarwal. Subsequently, his father also went Against order/decree of S. S. Arora, Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, D/- 5-9-1997. to England and he died there in 1970. Siri Ram Aggarwal thereafter started business in the said premises under the name and style of Vijay Agencies and had been in possession of the disputed properties ever since. When the respondent asked for the possession of the properties, the appellants refused to do so and this resulted in filing of the civil suit.

(3.) The appellants denied the factum of purchase of the disputed properties by the respondent. They set up the plea that one old shop was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 24-4-1959 in the name of the respondent due to love and affection for him. They further pleaded that the second shop was also purchased by them on 12-6-1959 in the name of the respondent on account of love and affection. According to the appellants, the entire construction was raised by them after demolition of the old structure and, therefore, they were the real and ostensible owner of the disputed properties. The appellants asserted that a huge amount was spent by them on the construction of the shops and they had been depositing local taxes etc. in respect thereof.