KISHORI LAL Vs. KARNAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated April 4, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge. Solan thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Solan in Civil Suit No.42/1 of 1995/88 on July 31, 1997.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the preferring of the present appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') instituted a suit against the defendant for possession of one room of Grewal Estate, situate in Khasra No. 78/2, Mauza Lower Bazar, Solan and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the other land and houses existing in Khasra Nos. 76, 77, 80/6, 78/2, 70/3 and 75/3, measuring 514 square meters, situate in Mauza Lower Bazar, Solan. After the institution of the suit, the defendant is alleged to have wrongly and illegally occupied a portion of annexe of two room set in Khasra Nos. 78/ 2 and 77 in the absence of the plaintiffs, therefore, they applied for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for possession of the said Annexe which was allowed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that by virtue of purchase of the suit property vide sale deed No. 758 dated 12-11-1987, they became owners of the suit property. The possession of the suit property, except one room which was in illegal possession of the defendant, was handed over by the seller to the plaintiffs. The defendant had no right, title or interest to remain in possession of the said room being a trespasser and is required to be evicted and the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession thereof. During the pendency of the suit and in the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendant illegally occupied an Annexe consisting of two rooms without the consent of the plaintiffs and has no right to remain in possession thereof. The plaintiffs also claim compensation by way of damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per day for illegal use and occupation of the premises in suit by the defendant. It is also averred that the defendant had threatened to illegally occupy the other portion of the estate owned by the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.