RAM CHANDER Vs. SHAM LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 779-C of 1966.

(2.) On the, 4th January, 1962, Sham Lal filed a suit against Ram Chanderand 12 others for the recovery of Rs. 3450/- on account of damages for use and occupation in respect of four plots of land situate in the town of Rewari, District Gurgaon. His allegations were that he was the owner of the said plots and the defendants had forcibly occupied them on 14th of April, 1957 and made illegal constructions on some part of this property. Consequently, on 14th of February 1959 he filed a suit for possession of these plots by demolition ofn the unauthorised constrctions thereon. The suit was decreed on 14th of March, 1960 and this decree was maintained up to this Court. The execution proceedings regarding the recovery of possession of these plots were pending in the court. Plaintiff claimed that the rental value of each plot was Rs. 200/- per annum, but he was entitled to double this amount from the defendants who were unauthorised occupations thereof. As a result, he claimed Rs. 3,450/- as damages for wrongful use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per annum for the period commencing 14th of February 1959 till 3rd of January, 1962.

(3.) The suit was contested by all the defendants who denied the claim of the plaintiff was not the owner of the said plots and they were in possession of the same for more than 12 years; the decree relerred to by the plaintiff was obtained by fraud; the rent of the disputed plots could not be more than Rs. 20/- per annum. Defendants No. 7 and 11 (Sheo Narain) also stated that the decree relied upon by the plaintiff was got by him through fraud and that the rental value of the plots could not be more than Rs. 20/- per annum. It was admitted that they were in possession of these plots. Defendants Nos. 8 to 10 expressed ignorance about the decree and pleaded that they were not in possession of the disputed plots. The stand of defendant No. 13 was similar to that of defendants Nos. 8 to 10.