SH.SANJAY SOOD Vs. SMT.INDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant, who having lost before the learned Courts below, has filed this regular second appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement to sell dated 24.12.1997 purportedly executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, whereby defendant No.2 is shown to have undertaken to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 of Set No.5, in the Second Floor of Khera Niwas Building, situated over the land comprised in Khewat No.80, Khatauni No.84, Khasra Nos. 225 and 226, Sanjauli, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), is illegal and void. A Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes consequential relief by way of a decree of possession of suit premises had also been sought and a decree for the recovery of Rs.1500/- i.e. use . and occupation charges of the suit premises with effect from 08.01.1998 to 31.03.1998, with future user and occupation charges thereof at the same rate on the ground that Khera Niwas Building housing the suit premises was initially owned by Trilok Singh. It was averred that Trilok Singh died leaving behind plaintiff Sh. Pritam Singh (now deceased) and daughters. to Uttam Singh as his sons and Harbhajan Kaur and Pritam Kaur as his Pritam Kaur died and her share was succeeded to by Jaswant Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur. It was further averred that in fact plaintiff, his brother Uttam Singh and the successor of his sister Pritam Kaur were not residing at Shimla and it is only Smt.Harbhajan Kaur, the wife of defendant No.2, who has been permanently residing at Shimla in the Upper Storey of Khera Niwas Building and she was managing the property on behalf of the plaintiff and other cosharer. Plaintiff had appointed Smt. Harbhajan Kaur as his Power of Attorney vide deed dated 16.02.1993 for managing his share in the property and she had been authorized to let out the property and receive the rent thereof.

(3.) It was also averred that by way of family arrangement all the co-sharers had partitioned the Khera Niwas Building and as per partition, Set No.1 and 2 of Ground Floor had been given to Smt.Kamaljeet Kaur and Jaswant Singh, respectively, Set No.3 and 4 to Uttam Singh, Set No.7 and 8 and three shops with attic shop to Smt.Harbhajan Kaur and Set No.5 and 6 had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. Smt. Harbhajan Kuar during her lifetime disposed of the aforesaid three shops fallen to her share. After her death, in the month of August, 1997, defendant No.2 came into possession of Set No.7 and 8 which had been allotted to his wife. One Shri. A.R.Chauhan was a tenant in the suit premises. His sister . Smt.Harbhajan Kaur during her lifetime filed eviction petition No.213/2 of 1998 against the above named tenant before the Rent Controller (3), Shimla and the same was allowed vide order dated 25.11.1991. Appeal preferred by the tenant before the learned Appellate Authority (1), Shimla was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.1995. Revision petition preferred to by him before this Court also entailed into dismissal vide order dated 04.04.1996.