HARI CHAND Vs. BANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs/appellants (hereafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs') against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Arki has been set aside.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit against Chunku alias Dutt Ram, predecessor in interest of the Respondents/Defendants (hereafter referred to as 'the Defendants') for eviction and handing over the vacant possession of one residential house cum shop comprised in Khasra Nos. 49/2 and 423/36, measuring 08 bighas, situate in village Darla, Pargna Parghat, Tehsil Arki. The case of the Plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that in the year 1978 said Chunku requested the Plaintiffs to rent out the aforesaid premises to him on annual rent of Rs. 60 and verbally agreed to vacate the same within one year on his having constructed own residential house cum shop. Pursuant to the said agreement, the predecessor in interest of the Defendants continued in possession of the said premises and failed to vacate them despite several requests by the Plaintiffs. On 3.10.1978 even a rent deed was executed whereby the premises were to be vacated on demand. On failure of the predecessor in interest of the Defendants, a notice dated 15.2.1993 was served upon him to hand over the vacant possession but of no avail. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested. In the written statement preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, lack of material particulars, want of service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and the notice allegedly served being invalid, valuation and estoppel by acts and deeds were raised. On merits, exclusive title of the Plaintiffs over the premises in suit was denied. It was claimed that the structure in question was independently constructed by the deceased Defendant who also carried out major repairs. It has also been claimed by adding an additional plea that the suit is barred by limitation. Other averments in the written statement on merits include the objections which have been taken as preliminary objections.