DHANI RAM Vs. AJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Hamirpur, dismissing the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest, of the appellant. The facts of the case may be noticed thus.

(2.) The original plaintiff Smt. Kaulan Devi had filed the present suit for possession against original defendants S/Shri Dalip Singh, Tara Chand and Major Kanwar Raghubir Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit and have been substituted by their legal representatives. The suit land is comprised in Khata No.153, Khatauni No.169, Khasra numbers Kita-11, land measuring 95 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in Tika Batran, Tappa Kohla, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54. It is averred that in the year 1955 Smt.Kaulan Devi, predecessor-in-interest, of the appellant was assured by defendant No.1 to maintain her in future provided she made a gift in his favour and on this assurance Smt. Kaulan Devi executed a registered gift deed dated 24.06.1955 in favour of defendant No.1 subject to her maintenance by the defendant. It was further averred that the defendant got wrongly incorporated in the gift deed that Smt.Kaulan Devi was being maintained for the last 15 years by him, though she was never maintained and looked after by the defendant. It was also averred that defendant No.1 was serving in the Army and had been giving maintenance occasionally to Smt.Kaulan Devi, but for the last 2 years the defendant No.1 failed to maintain as well as look after her. It was also averred that the gift deed was executed in lieu of maintenance and future services to be rendered by the defendant to Smt.Kaulan Devi and on failure of the defendant to render services as per custom prevailing amongst the parties, the gift deed stood revoked. It was further averred that the defendant No.1 sold the suit land in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 vide mutation No.620 dated 06.04.1961 and thereafter during consolidation the suit land was partitioned. Hence, the suit for possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 Dalip Singh by filing written statement in which he admitted the claim of the plaintiff and prayed that the suit be decreed as prayed for.