INDER LAL KHANNA Vs. KRISHAN LAL MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 3924 of 1987 as both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak dated 12-9-1987.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants are the owners of a dairy/plot bearing No. 107/108, whereas he is the tenant under defendant No. 1 Krishan Lal Malhotra. According to the plaintiff he is in possession thereof as a tenant for the last 7 years on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- which he is regularly paying to the landlord. He further alleged that he is running the business of a milk dairy and is tethering the buffaloes at the said site. There are cattle shed, khor, one incomplete shop, another room and a dairy room, chaff store, hand-pump, water tank etc. at the site and all those things are in existence at the, spot and they are in occupation of the plaintiff. Since the defendants without any right or concern are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the property in dispute by force, he filed the present suit on 26-9-1983.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the plea taken was that the plaintiff is not a tenant under them and on the other hand, they are owners in possession of the plot. It was further pleaded that the defendants along with Nihal Chand, Harish Chand and Jagdish Chand had purchased 1/3rd share of a plot measuring 718 sq. yards on 13-4-1972 through a registered sale-deed dated 14-4-1972 and then the said area was divided into four portions. There was private partition between the co-sharers in the year 1973-74 and thereafter Harish Chand had raised construction over a portion of his plot. The portion which had fallen to the share of Nihal Chand was purchased by the defendants from him through registered sale deed dated 12-2-1981. As alleged, Nihal Chand had started construction on his portion, but it was left incomplete by him which is still lying as such, they further pleaded that the plaintiff obtained only the portion of the plot, fallen to the share of defendant No. 1 as a licencee. The residential plot which was purchased by the defendants in the year 1981 was not in possession of the plaintiff and there was no question of the plaintiff being inducted as a tenant or licencee in that portion in the year 1977-78 because the defendants were not the owners of the same prior to 1981. The defendants also alleged that there was no cattle shed etc. on the area in dispute and that there is construction up to plinth level on the commercial plot adjoining the road. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiff is in permissive use of the residential plot shown by letters A, B, C and D in the site plan attached with the written statement Exhibit D3. It was explained that the plaintiff is the son of maternal uncle of the defendants. He was married and was residing in village Lahil where he developed relations with Santosh working as A.N.M. in the Health Centre. Thus, the plaintiff was involved in a criminal case. The defendant No. 1 at the request of the mother of the plaintiff helped him and in order to enable the plaintiff to stand on his legs, defendant No. 1 arranged an amount of Rs. 8000/- as loan from the Bank on the guarantee of Ram Kishan Chawla, for the purchase of buffaloes and he also permitted him to tether his buffaloes on his plot. It was denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further alleged that Inder Lal plaintiff agreed to sell his agricultural land to defendant No. 4 but some dispute arose and an arbitrator was appointed to decide the dispute, who imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff and his brother Krishan Lal and defendant No. 4 was directed to leave the land by 21-4-1983 and to demolish his tube-well etc. Accordingly defendant No. 4 acted on the award and removed his tubewell. In these circumstances, the defendants also made counter-claim in their written statement for mandatory/permanent injunction against the plaintiff and also claimed mesne profits for the use and occupation of the site in dispute.