RANDHIR SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Suresh Kumar filed a suit for possession by way of eviction and for recovery of mesne profits, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the defendant (since deceased).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under :-

(3.) THE defendant-appellant filed written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff on various pump was issued in favour of the defendant, being freedom fighter. In the application form, there was column for nominating financer. Father-in-law of Tilak Raj was the financer and he was approached through Tilak Raj at the instance of some friend and his name was written in the form. Initially, financial help of Rs. 30,000/- was sought, out of which land for the petrol pump was purchased. Agreement to that effect was executed by the defendant, but Tilak Raj became dishonest and he wanted to take benefit of his position. The defendant was humiliated on account of the depressed condition of his mind. Tilak Raj managed to get the sale deed executed and registered in the name of his son i.e. the present plaintiff Suresh Kumar and also got written the other document, which is said to be alleged lease deed. The same were without the intention of the parties and as a result of fraud and undue influence exercised upon the defendant, therefore, such documents are void ab-initio and not binding upon the right and title of the defendant. It has further been submitted that Tilak Raj previously instituted a suit for declaration to get declared his son Suresh Kumar as partner in the business of the petrol pump being run by the defendant. The said suit was got dismissed on 16.3.1998. Since the year 1985, Tilak Raj had been pursuing one litigation after the other. One similar suit was decided by the court of Sh. P.L. Ahuja, and that judgment was reversed by the learned appellate court, which kept the status of the parties as per dictum of the civil suit for declaration pending at that time, which was got dismissed on 16.3.1998. After dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff was left with no such status, therefore, he is not entitled to recover Rs. 300/- per month as lease money. The plaintiff has no concern with the suit land whereas the defendant is owner in possession thereof. Therefore, the defendant is not bound to make payment of any amount and deliver possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. Other averments made in the plaint have been denied." On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on 26.2.2001 :-