OM PARKASH Vs. VEER BHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgement and decree dated 10.09.2018 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, in Civil Appeal 169 of 2015/RBT-213 of 2017 by which the First Appellate Court has affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Faridabad, dated 08.10.2015 in Case No.RBT 294/17.11.2011/01.11.2013, the defendant/ appellant has preferred present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) On summons being issued defendants appeared and contested the claim by filing the joint written statement submitting that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor was in possession of the suit property. Its possession was never handed over by the Municipal Committee, Faridabad, to Chela Ram and no construction had been raised by him. It is averred that defendant no.1 and her husband Jodha Ram were actually the owners and in possession of the suit property which was allotted by the Municipal Committee on 14.03.1969 against payment of Rs.250/-. It is also averred that defendant no.1 approached the Municipal Committee for allotment of the remaining portion of the plot, i.e. 95.37 square yards which was also in the possession of the defendants which was eventually allotted in her favour. Thus, she came into possession of entire 120 square yards area alongwith the suit property in year 1971-72. Thereafter, sewerage charges and tax charges were being paid by Jodha Ram, i.e. the husband of defendant no.1. The electricity connection was also installed in the premises in the year 1988 in the name of defendants and as such, there was no question of possession of father of the plaintiff over the suit property. It has finally been stated that the suit has been filed only with intention to grab the suit property without having any right, title and interest by digging side walls of the house of the defendants on 07.02.1983 and the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the defendants against Chela Ram which was decreed and appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. The defendants had clarified that the aforesaid suit was not for declaration of title on the property, but it was a simple suit for permanent injunction. Even it is not clear from the Judgment of the High Court that there was any evidence to the effect that the father of the plaintiff was dispossessed after filing of the suit.

(3.) The Trial Court, on appreciation of rival pleadings framed following issues: