LAHORI RAM Vs. KALI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2006. Against the said judgment and decree, plaintiff; defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 4 filed three appeals separately. All the three appeals were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-

(3.) Defendants No.6 and 7 filed written statement admitting the pleas taken by the plaintiff in his plaint. Defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 filed written statement on the plea that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the suit is time barred; that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts and conduct; that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It is denied that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the house in dispute. It is admitted that earlier Dwarka Dass was owner in possession of the suit property. It is also not disputed that Dwarka Dass died in the year 1964. It is pleaded that at the time of death of Dwarka Dass, plaintiff, his brother Shyam Sunder, Usha and Smt.Bashesar Devi had attained the age of majority; defendants No. 7 and 8 were minors at that time. The minors were not capable to give their consent regarding any family settlement. It is denied that Shyam Sunder requested the plaintiff to arrange some money for him for purchasing a house or plot at Faridabad. It is denied that any such family settlement, as mentioned in the plaint, took place in the year 1970 in between the parties to the suit in the presence of Smt. Bashesar Devi. It is also denied that suit property fell to the share of plaintiff and sufficient funds were provided by the plaintiff to Shyam Sunder for purchasing a house at Faridabad. It is also denied that Shyam Sunder relinquished his rights and interest in the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It is also denied that defendants No. 6 to 8 were compensated with cash amount, ornaments and valuable articles. It is also denied that any such settlement took place or that plaintiff became owner of the suit property after death of Smt.Bashesar Devi. It is pleaded that in fact house tax etc. are being paid jointly by the owners. Shyam Sunder was working as tuner in Metal Box India Ltd. Faridabad and was having sufficient income to bring up his family. A house was got allotted by Shyam Sunder in the name of his wife Usha Rani defendant No.5 and he paid instalments of that house in the beginning at the rate of Rs. 48/- per month and later on at the rate of Rs.67/- per month from his salary income. The instalments were completed in the month of December, 1995. Loan was also obtained in this regard by Shyam Sunder from maternal uncle of defendants No. 1 to 4. It is also denied that defendants threatened to obtain possession of the house in dispute forcibly or that they have threatened to alienate the suit property. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with compensatory cost."