HEM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. HARDEI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-Appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-Hardei for grant of permanent injunction and dismissing the counter claim filed by the defendantsappellants for decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question. This Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2015 decided the appeal while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No.89 of 2018 on January 08, 2018 remanded the case to this Court for re-decision. The operative part of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:-

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Hardei claimed that she is owner in possession of land measuring 800 sq. yards on which three thatched huts have been fabricated being ancestral property situated in the residential area of village Tilpat, Faridabad. The plaintiff claimed that she is a poor widow and the property is being used for residence and for triggering cattles. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff, her husband, her father-in-law all are residents of Uttar Pradesh and migrated to State of Haryana only 15-16 years back. It is further pleaded by the defendants that plaintiff being poor lady was permitted to reside in the plot in question. A writing was also executed permitting her to stay for a period of 11 months while writing dated 29.09.1994 thumb marked by the plaintiff.

(3.) Both the Courts after appreciating the evidence available on the file decreed the suit for injunction although while recording finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the property is her ancestral property. The Courts granted a decree for permanent injunction in her favour. However, while dealing with the counter-claim, the Courts have held that the defendants-appellants have failed to prove their ownership and have also failed to prove their writing dated 29.09.1994 and hence, the counterclaim was dismissed. It may be noted here that the learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after discussing evidence available on the file have held that the stand taken by the defendants-appellants that the plaintiff, her husband and father-in-law came from State of Uttar Pradesh only 15-16 years back, is incorrect. It has been found on examination of evidence particularly voter list, ration card, evidence of ration purchased and chulha tax paid that the plaintiff and her husband are recorded as voters and residents of the village for the last more than 20 years. Ex.PW-10/2, 10/3, 10/4, 10/5 and 10/7 are copies of the voter list which prove that the plaintiff, her husband and other family members are registered voters in the village. Still further, Courts have relied upon evidence of PW-3 Rambir who has stated that since 1992, the plaintiff has a ration card and she used to buy ration from his ration depot. Rambir runs a fair price shop in the village. He has also proved that as per register, the plaintiff is registered at serial No.365. Further PW-6 Inder Pal Gaur has proved that in 1997 Hardei-plaintiff applied for an electric connection which was allotted to her in the year 1997.