RAM KRISHAN Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts out of which this appeal has arisen are that appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs.1950/ - against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. Basis of this suit was that prior to him his ate father. Shri Ratti Ram was the owner of a doubled sorroyed structure consisting of one shop in the ground floor and one room in the first floor standing on Khasra No.860/81/2. Khata No. 134. Khatauni No. 136. measuring 1 biswa situated at Mauza Junga (Chaunri). Pargana Parali. Tehsil and District Shimla. According to him these premises are bounded and abutted as under: - In front : Shimla -Junga Road. On the back : Civil Hospital Compound. On one side : Room occupied by Surinder Halwai and On the other side : Vacant land of the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff also claimed that his father filed civil suit No.208/1 of 1979 against the defendant regarding suit property which was compromised on 7.1.1982. As a result of this compromise, defendant admitted the father of plaintiff to be the owner and further agreed to pay the amount of arrears in the sum of Rs.600/ - by installments and to further continue to pay the rent of the premises in future at the rate of Rs.50/ - per month. During the pendency of this suit, according to the plaintiff, his father renovated the premises by adding one more storey which was also let out to the defendant. Defendant neither cared to pay the agreed rent for this structure nor paid any amount in terms of decree. Further case of the plaintiff is that he instituted a suit for possession and recovery of money being civil Suit No.228/1 of 1984. This was decided by Sub Judge 1st Class (I). Shimla. on 17.1.1986. However, it was allowed to be withdrawn by District Judge. Shimla, in Civil Appeal No.49 -S/83 of 1986, on 20.5.1987. Liberty was reserved according to the plaintiff, in his favour subject to cost of Rs.75/ - which he claims to have deposited.

(3.) Defendat when put to notice, contested and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. According to him suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form, as also it is bad for failure to join State of H.P. as party besides other necessary parties. Estoppel on account of the acts, deeds, conduct, lapses and consent was also set -up as a ground. It was further pleaded that Khasra No.868/61 is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. According to him, plaintiff has not disclosed as to how he acquired ownership of the suit land and present suit is an act of pure and simple harassment by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that in the notice dated 4.10.1983. plaintiff claimed tenancy in respect of accommodation consisting of two rooms in the ground floor of a double strayed house upon the area of Khasra No.860/81/1. measuring 2 biswas, whereas in the present suit he has claimed ownership over one room in the ground floor and one room in the first floor. Thus the claim was contradictory.