VINOD KUMAR Vs. SHIV DUTT CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts in this regular second appeal are : Shiv Dutt plaintiff claimed a mandatory injunction against the defendants directing them to vacate the house in dispute. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the plot having purchased it in an open auction on 14 3.1956 and thereafter constructed the house on it though his elder brother Bhagwan Dass, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants live in the said house as a licensee. It was Bhagwan Dass who looked after the construction when it was in progress in 1960. The plaintiff was employed away from Palwal. On the death of Bhagwan Dass, his children were permitted to continue as licensees as they were of tender age. It was alleged that other house old articles of the plaintiff were also given to the defendant-licensees. The plaintiff had revoked the licence in 1964-65 but the defendants had not put him into possession of the house.

(2.) The defendants controverted the said allegations. They claimed that the house in dispute was built by their father who lived in it with his family. On has death, they continue to live in it as owners. The plea of adverse possession was taken. It was averred that Bhagwan Dais and the plaintiff had purchased adjoining plots Nos. 107-R and 114L in auction. By their mutual arrangement, Bhagwan Dass, took plot No. 107-R and plot No. 114-L fell to the share of the plaintiff, though the sale with respect to plot No. 107-R was in the name of the plaintiff and plot No. 114-L was in favour of Bhagwan Dass. The plot of Bhagwan Dass is still lying vacant and the plaintiff is at liberty to raise construction thereon.

(3.) On the pladings of the parties various issues were framed. The trial Court after apprectation of the oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was proved to be owner of the house in dispute and the defendants were licensees. The alleged oral exchange was found to be absent. The house in dispute was proved to have been constructed at the cost of the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession was held to be not proved. It was found that the suit was maintainable and the plaintiff had the locus standi to file the same. The suit was accordingly decreed. The defendants challenged the decree in appeal. The lower appellate Court confirmed the findings of The trial Court and dismissed the appeal.