SHASHI Vs. SUSHEEL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for possession filed by plaintiff was decreed and appeal filed by defendant was also dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first instance. Relevant facts for the purpose of decision of present Regular Second Appeal that plaintiff had filed suit for possession on the ground that he is owner of shop in dispute, which is a portion of his house situated on Milton Road, Sonepat. Defendant is his neighbour and they had very cordial relations. In the year 1999-2000, the plaintiff constructed three shops, including the shop in question. Defendant helped him in constructing those shops. Defendant won over his confidence. The keys of the said shops were lying with the defendant in good faith as plaintiff was looking for some tenant. However, in September, 2000, the defendant requested the plaintiff that the services of her husband Rajender Kumar were terminated from Milton Cycle Industries, where he was working and she wanted to start the business of manufacturing candles, for which she had applied for a loan from the Bank. Plaintiff accepted the request and handed over the possession of the shop. Defendant also obtained an affidavit that suit property was rented out to her. However, after obtaining the affidavit, the defendant made some over writing on the same that plaintiff had received Rs. 1,00,000/- from her and that she would not be ejected till her life.

(2.) Defendant denied the fact that shop in question is the portion of the house of the plaintiff. However, defendant took the plea that the shop in question was rented on 14.09.2000, by the plaintiff till her life and a; that time plaintiff had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (in lump sum) and an affidavit was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant, which was duly attested by notary public. Defendant is running a business of video game, selling toys and toffees for the children in the said shop. Later on, plaintiff threatened the defendant to trespass from the suit property and civil suit for permanent injunction was filed, which was decreed in her favour.

(3.) On these facts, the issues were framed and settled by the Court of first instance. Learned Court of first instance, after appreciating the evidence available on file, returned the findings that affidavit Ex. P.W. 1/G (Ex. P1 in the case file titled as 'Shashi v. Susheel' decided on 27.11.2004) was a forged document in view of statement of expert witness, who appeared as P.W.-1 in the case. He had made report on the basis of his expert knowledge that certain lines were added subsequently. Court of first instance returned the findings that even if the document is taken into to be rent deed, the same required compulsory registration but that has not been done and the status of defendant is that of trespasser.