SURENDER KUMAR OF HISSAR Vs. BAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATU Ram was unmarried and issueless. He had three nephews, (1) Bal Krishan, (2) Surender Kumar and (3) Ram Kishan. On 2.2.1981, Matu Ram suffered a consent decree regarding the house in dispute in favour of Bal Krishan. As a result of the consent decree, instead of Matu Ram, Bal Krishan became the owner of the house. On 4.6.1981, Bal Krishan filed a suit against Surinder Kumar for mandatory injunction directing him to deliver possession of the portion of the house in his occupation to the plaintiff on the plea that the plaintiff was the owner thereof under the consent decree and earlier he was provided shelter gratuitously by Matu Ram being his real nephew and after the consent decree, he became licensee under the plaintiff.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he was the owner in possession of the house and he had constructed the same and Matu Ram as his uncle, assisted him in the construction work. In the alternative he claimed ownership by adverse possession. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that Matu Ram was the owner of the house as he had raised the construction although the site underneath the house belonged to someone else and Matu Ram had let in the defendant as a licensee being his nephew as he did not have any place to live in the city of Hissar. It was also held that under the consent decree, title passed on to the plaintiff and the consent decree did not require registration. As a result, the suit stood decreed. This is defendant's second appeal.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we conclude that Matu Ram had constructed the house since purchase was made by a document which was not got registered, the title in the site did not pass on to Matu Ram. Since the true owner of the site did come forward to claim ownership thereof and the house has stood on the site right from 1958-59 till he suffered the decree in favour of the plaintiff, he would at least have the possessory title under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. By the time he suffered the decree he may have acquired title to site as well by way of adverse possession. He conveyed his title in the house to the plaintiff under the consent decree and as has been held by us in R.S.A. No. 2061 of 1987 Gurdev Kaur v. Mehar Singh decided on 28.7.1988, the consent decree does not require registration and it conveys good title to the plaintiff.