MOTI LAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by defendants 3 and 4 directed against judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Narnaul whereby defendants 3 and 4 have been held to be trespassers and a decree for possession has been passed against them.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the shop in dispute was owned by one Keshav Dev. He had let out the shop to one Raghbir Singh. Vide sale-deed dated 12.10.1960, Keshav Dev sold the property to Manohar Lal (respondent No.1 herein). On sale, Raghbir Singh became the tenant of Manohar Lal and on an application filed by Manohar Lal for Fixation of fair rent, the fair rent of the shop was fixed at Rs.56/-per month. The sale made by Keshav Dev in favour of Manohar Lal was challenged by the sons of Keshav Dev, namely, Hans Raj, Suresh Kumar and Rishi Kumar, on the ground that the shop in dispute is the property of Hindu Undivided Family and the sale made by Keshav Dev is not for the benefit of the estate. On contest by Manohar Lal, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 8.5.1974. In the first appeal, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit decreed. Manohar Lal challenged the decree of the first appellate Court by means of Regular Second Appeal No. 1408 of 1979. At this stage, it is to be noted that in execution of the decree passed by the first appellate Court, the sons of Keshav Dev took symbolic possession of the property in dispute. While the Regular Second Appeal was pending, Manohar Lal filed Civil Misc. Application No. 3046-C of 1981 in which he stated that though the respondents therein have already been restrained from alienating the property in dispute, but he has an apprehension that after getting the property vacated from the old tenants, the same is going to be let out to the new tenants on premium. The sons of Keshav Dev denied this averment. However, S.P. Goyal, J, (as his Lordship then was) on 7.12.1981 passed the following order:

(3.) Though the appeal is at the stage of motion hearing, but since vide order dated 18.10.1996, V.K. Bali, J. had decided not to remit the case to the first appellate Court as had been pleaded by the counsel for the appellant, and had desired to hear the parties both on the question of law and facts, the counsel have been heard and whatever documents on record are referred to by the counsel, have been gone through.