BHAGAT RAM Vs. RAKESH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by Bhagat Ram defendant -appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi dated 22nd June, 1979, by which the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub -Judge, Mandi, dated 30th October, 1978 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff -respondent has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Rakesh Kapoor plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Bhagat Ram defendant to the effect that the defendant be directed to vacate permanently the land described in the plaint along with the house and the cow -shed situate on this land, and also to return the tools and plants, etc. described in the plaint or to pay Rs. 100/ -in lieu of these tools and plants, and not to interfere with the plaintiffs possession on the said land, the house and the cow -shed. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of 32 -12 -10 bighas of land situate in village Panjheti, Tehsil Saddar, District Mandi, as detailed in the plaint that the defendant was appointed as a servant by the plaintiffs father to look after the disputed land and a regular agreement was executed by the defendant on 24th February 19 ?2 for this purpose, according to which the services of the defendant were for a period of one year and the term of the defendants service expired on 23rd February, 1973 and that thereafter the plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the possession of the property as well as the tools, etc. to the plaintiff and even a notice was issued to the defendant to perform his obligation as a servant on 30th March, 1973, but the defendant did not concede to the plaintiffs request. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant was only a servant and he was in occupation of the disputed property as a licensee and as such on the expiry of the date of the licence the defendant is under an obligation to perform his duty and to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff. This suit was filed on 19th April, 1973 in the court of the Senior Sub -Judge, Mandi.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant -appellant, and it was alleged that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action, that the suit is bad for non -joinder of parties, that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and as such the jurisdiction of civil court is barred, and that the valuation for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction is incorrect. It was also alleged that the defendant never executed the alleged agreement, dated 24th February, 1972, that the defendant, in fact, is in possession of the land as a tenant on payment of 1/4th of the produce as rent, that the alleged agreement, if any, is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and that the defendant is an illiterate innocent man and the plaintiffs father being a clever man had been fraudulently getting thumb impressions of the defendant on certain documents, after telling the defendant that the same pertained to the clearance of receipt of rent of the produce. It was also asserted that the defendant had himself planted fruit trees and that he never agreed to get Rs. 400/ - per annum, as salary. It was also alleged that the defendant filed an application for correction of revenue entries, when he came to know that his name has not been recorded in the revenue papers as a tenant, and that on this application the plaintiffs father put undue pressure upon the defendant through the police authorities so that the defendant may be compelled to give up the possession of the suit land and thus surrender the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the construction of the house and the cattle -shed had been made by the defendant at his own costs and tools, etc. also belong to the defendant. All other allegations of the plaint were denied. After replication the following issues were framed on 7th December, 1973