MOHD.HAMEED Vs. RAJ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With the consent of the parties this appeal has been taken up for final hearing at this stage and is being disposed of accordingly.

(2.) This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Chamba dated 4.4.1994 in Civil Appeal No.41 1995/1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 102 of 1989 dated 9.9.1993 has been affirmed.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this case arc that a suit for possession and rendition of accounts was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plea of the plaintiff was that he is the owner in possession of the suit premises comprised in Khata Khatauni No.961/1281, Khasra Nos.5618,5649 and 5621 measuring 124 -4 sq. yards, situate in Mophalla Sapri within the to winship of Chamba (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). According to the plaintiff, while he was employed in the Department of Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh, he was posted out from Chamba. Since the premises were located at a distance of about 60 yards from the bus stand, the plaintiff with a view to have maximum returns out of it, executed a registered power of attorney (Ext.P -2) and authorised the defendant to manage the suit premises as well as for looking after the same. He also executed his last will (Ext.P -1) which was registered. The case of the plaintiff further was that with the funds provided by him a three storey building was constructed where in its ground floor, the defendant was running a guest house in the name of Super Lodge and on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 27.1.1982, he got a licence under the H.P. Registration of Hotels and Travelling Agents Act,1972 from the Commissioner of Tourism, Himachal Pradesh on 11.2.1982, The defendant had borrowed Rs.15,000/ - for running hotel in the suit property from the State Bank of Patiala. The plaintiff has retired from service on 31.1.1987. The plaintiff wanted to run his hotel at his own responsibility. At such stage, the defendant had refused to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. At this stage, plaintiff issued a notice vide Ext.P -3 upon the defendant which was duly replied to by the defendant vide Ext. P - 4. Amongst other things, the defendant did not dispute the execution of power of attorney, though he stated that it was only for limited purposes of either defending a case against the plaintiff or for filing a case in respect of the property in question on behalf of the plaintiff. From the tenor of the reply it appears that the defendant claimed adverse possession in respect of the property in question. In any event, neither in the written statement nor in the reply to the notice sent by defendant, the title of the plaintiff was disputed expressly by the defendant. In the written statement, a plea was raised that the defendant one night was counting the currency notes worth Rs.48, 000/ - when the plaintiff came there and advised the defendant that instead of depositing this amount in the bank, he should spent it on construction of the premises in question. It was further pleaded that the entire construction has been raised by the defendant after putting in those Rs.48, 000/ - in this exercise besides having raised money by sale of gold ornaments. The defendant also claimed that he had raised funds from other sources and it was thereafter that in the year 1984 -85, he started running the hotel in question in his own name w.e.f. 11.2.1985. Thus, it is evident that adverse possession was claimed which was put lo issue under issue No. 9 by the trial court.