PREM SHARMA Vs. NISHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub- Judge, Lahaul and Spiti District at Kullu dated April 25, 1998, passed under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendants are in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be put in narrow compass : Nishi Sharma, respondent herein, filed a suit for possession of the house subject matter of dispute which is located in Raghunathpur in the town of Kullu on the basis of her prior possession under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The case of the plaintiff was that she was in exclusive possession of this house till April 22, 1995 on which date, the defendants, after forming an unlawful assembly, with an object to oust her from the house, tres-passed into the house at about 2.30 a.m., gave beatings to her and her children and ousted them from this house. A report was lodged with Police Station at Kullu but without any fruitful result. According to the plaintiff, she purchased this house from one Godawari by a registered sale deed on July 20, 1988 though even prior to this, she and her family were residing in this house with Godawari.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit. Several preliminary objections were taken. It was pleaded that the house was neither owned nor possessed by Godawari exclusively. According to the defendants, this house was constructed by late Smt. Shankargiri. Shankar Giri was mother of defendants Prem Sharma, Raj Sharma and Godawari. After the death of Shankar Giri, the house was inherited, along with other properties, by sons and daughters of Shankar Giri. Therefore, claimed defendants, house in question was in joint ownership and possession of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Godawari and their brothers and sisters. It was denied that the house was sold to Plaintiff Nishi Sharma by Godawari. It was the further case of the defendants that plaintiff had nothing to do with Godawari or the house and she, in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses, forged a fictitious sale deed with a view to grab the house in question. It was pleaded that F I .R. lodged against the defendants was fake. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the house in question or any other property of Godawari. Therefore, there was no question of the plaintiff having been dispossessed by the defendants from the house.