TIRATH RAM Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by a plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. The appellant-had filed suit No. 69 of 14. 2. 1977 in the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Ballabgarh contending therein that he is the owner of the house in dispute and that he had purchased this house from the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation Vide sale deed dated 28. 7. 1961 (Ex. P. 1) and that by virtue of the same he was the sole owner of the property in dispute and that the defendant Mohan Lal (predecessor in title of the present respondents) who was his real brother had no right, title or interest in it. Mohan Lal was allowed to use and occupy the said portion as a licensee and that he was bound to vacate the same as and when the plaintiff wanted to vacate the same.

(2.) THE Courts below had not accepted the contentions of the plaintiff because there is another document on record Ex. D3 which is a certified copy of the sale deed in which along with the name of the plaintiff, the name of the father of the plaintiff is also written as a purchaser. The crux of the whole case is whether from the document annexure P/1, the name of the father of the plaintiff is removed subsequently. Another aspect to be considered will be whether the change could have been effected by the authorities after the sale deed Ex-P1 was issued in the name of the plaintiff alone and then to consider the alternative argument of the property being of Joint Hindu Family.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that though the sale certificate Ex. P1 was issued in the name of the plaintiff alone, the name of father of the plaintiff was subsequently got written along with his name and, therefore, his father had not acquired any right in the suit property. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the suit property was sold by the document executed on behalf of President of India and the amount of Rs. 2810. 65 was by adjustment against the compensation payable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the property was placed as a displaced person. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 91 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules is as under: