SOHAN SINGH Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is regular second appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1998 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Kapurthala, who dismissed the appeal of Sohan Singh, Plaintiff appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998 passed by the civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Phagwara, who dismissed the plaint of the plaintiff but decreed the counter claim of the defendants and directed the plaintiff to vacate the premises in question as he was in permissive possession being licensee of defendants 1. and 2.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants on the plea that the house in dispute stands on two plots No. 118 and 119 purchased in the name of defendant No. 2 by her father-in-law vide two registered sale deeds dated 22.5.1964. Defendant No. 1 had been serving outside Punjab in police from 1958 till his retirement in 1990 and he is still residing at Gwalior. Defendant No. 1 was married to defendant No. 2 in October, 1963 and he constructed the house in the year 1965 from 1965 till 1971-72 the house remained in possession of his various friends and relatives without any remuneration, with the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff who is elder brother of defendant No. 1 was to perform the marriage of his daughter in 1971-72 and he had no house in Phagwara. He requested the defendants to allow him to perform the said marriage in the said house. Resultantly, the defendants permitted him to do so. The plaintiff, thereafter, was asked to deliver the possession, which was given to him on account of love and affection. The possession of the plaintiff is permissive and not hostile to the defendants. The defendant No. 1 is paying the house tax assessed by the Committed. The defendants are owners in possession of the house. A counter claim was also lodged by the defendants and it was prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed in their favour and against the plaintiff.

(3.) A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff to the counter claim of the defendants and the following issues were framed.:-