MANGAL RAM Vs. KRISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the suit an application was filed by the respondents-defendants seeking permission of the Court to raise construction of pucca house in place of katcha house already constructed by them, on the ground that they will raise the construction over the suit property and if the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs was decreed' in that eventuality they will remove the construction/malba at their own expenses. It was also pleaded that their house was very old and it was in a very dilapidated condition and had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and therefore, they be permitted to raise construction of their pucca house in place of old katcha house and be allowed to raise construction of Southern wall thereof, which was highly endangerous.

(2.) ON notice, petitioners-plaintiffs contested the application on the grounds that Kishan Singh defendant had made a statement on 13.12.1990 before the trial Court that he wanted to raise the construction of three walls of his house in dispute at his own expenses and he will not claim anything therefor but Kishan Singh defendant thereafter changed the existing nature of the house in dispute and also closed the exit of northern side of the house in dispute. According to the petitioners-plaintiffs Kishan defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his statement and now he has moved the aforesaid application with ulterior motive, just to cause wrongful gain to himself and a wrongful loss to the petitioner-plaintiffs, as according to the petitioners-plaintiffs ownership of the house is in dispute and, therefore, respondents-defendants had no right to raise construction or to change the existing nature of the house in dispute.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the report of the Local Commissioner, the trial Court was of the view that the house of respondents-defendants actually needed reconstruction but they could not be allowed to reconstruct the entire house. The trial Court held that in the interest of justice only kitchen and room marked as 'B' were allowed to be reconstructed. It was further made clear by the trial Court in its order that in case the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs was decreed then the respondents-defendants shall remove the entire construction of their house at their own responsibility and expenses, within the stipulated period, failing which the petitioners-plaintiffs would also become owners of such property. The petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged this order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri dated 2.8.1996.