GIAN CHAND Vs. RAM PARSHAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2007, dated 26.03.2008, vide which, learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the present appellant, upheld the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 48/1 of 2004, dated 23.04.2007, vide which learned trial Court dismissed the suit for declaration so filed by the present appellant against the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the suit land comprised in Khevat No. 8 min, Khatauni No. 20 min, Khata No. 118, measuring 0-45-85, situated in Mauja Modar, Pargna Kot-Kehloor, Up-Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, as per Jamabandi for the year 1998- 99 though was owned by the defendants, had been leased out by them in favour of the plaintiff in June 2001 for monthly rent of Rs.300/- as ground rent and same was given to plaintiff to construct a shop, who thereafter constructed a shop over the same in July, 2001 by incurring expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. He was running a Tea shop over the same by further incurring expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. According to the plaintiff, despite the fact that he was regularly paying rent to the defendants, they were bent upon to get vacated the shop from the plaintiff and on these basis, the plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration that the suit land had been permanently leased in his favour by the defendants and further for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference over the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In the alternative, a decree for possession of the suit land was prayed for in case the defendants were successful in displacing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants, who in the written statement took the stand that land comprised in Khasra No. 118 was never leased out in favour of the plaintiff, but a wooden structure/Khokha was taken on lease by plaintiff from defendant No. 4 from 25.07.2003 to 31.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs.8000/- with the undertaking that the plaintiff would hand over the vacant possession of the same immediately after the expiry of said period and the said undertaking was given on a stamp paper. It was also the case of the defendants that the Khokha in issue was not constructed by the plaintiff, but was constructed by defendants. On these bases, the case of the plaintiff was refuted by the defendants.