INDER PAL Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff Inder Pal has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1998 passed by Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9.3.1994 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Batala, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for mandatory injunction against his father Des Raj and brother Romesh.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner:-

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No. 2 did not appear in the trial Court. However, the suit was contested by defendant No. 1 and he took the objections that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable because there is no relationship of licenser and licensee between the parties; that the suit is not within limitation and that the suit is not property valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, the stand of defendant No. 1 was that the site underneath the suit property is a Nazool property but the property in dispute has been got constructed by him and he is in possession of the same for the last 35 years. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property in dispute and the plaintiff never delivered the possession of the shop in dispute to him. The plaintiff was deputed by the defendant No. 1 to give bid for the shop in dispute in the auction proceedings for taking the same on rent and the plaintiff made a bid regarding the shop in dispute in his own name though the same was for and on behalf of the defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that the plaintiff was not conducting himself properly and he used to squander the property of the defendant No. 1. With above broad allegations, the defendant No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the suit.