TULSI RAM Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the learned Courts below under concurrently recorded pronouncement, upon, Civil Suit No. 74 of 2000, hence dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number(s). Being aggrieved, therefrom, the plaintiff(s)/appellants have instituted the instant appeal before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the the defendant No.1 is the son and defendant No.2 is Ram. to daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff deceased Tulsi Deceased plaintiff Tulsi Ram, after his retirement from the government service started construction of house in the year 1986 on his land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.19 min/147 min, Khasra No.1203/1153, measuring 1-6-0 bighas, situated in Muhal Garoru/339, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., The construction of the house on the suit land was completed in the year 1994-95. It has been pleaded that the suit land is self acquired property of the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same. The defendants being son and daughter in law of the plaintiff had started residing in the house in question, and, in the month of February, 1999, they denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the house constructed thereon and started asserting their exclusive possession over the suit land and the house thereon. They also started interfering with the remaining vacant suit land in possession of the plaintiff. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff was forced to live in the old house consisting of two rooms situated in abadi deh land of the village. Since, the plaintiff has been deprived of the suit land by the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled to recover damages of Rs.12,000.00 from the defendants. The plaintiff sought decree of possession of the house in question situated on the suit land, and, also permanent prohibitory injunction for retraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the remaining vacant portion of the suit land, and, he also claimed a sum of Rs.1000.00 per month as rental value of the house in question till final vacation.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections, inter alia, maintainability, estoppel, locus standi cause of action and limitation. On merits, it has been submitted that defendant No.1 is the son of the for the last 18 years to plaintiff, who has been employed as Surveyor in HPSEB, He had been handing over his entire salary to the plaintiff. In the year 1986, the plaintiff persuaded defendant No.1 to construct separate house in the suit land, and, defendant No.1, on persuasion of the plaintiff constructed the house on the suit land by spending an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00, whereas, remaining vacant land was being used by the defendants as courtyard and kitchen garden since the year 1986. The defendants started residing in the house since the month of January, 1988. It is further asserted that the plaintiff himself persuaded defendant No.1 to construct house on the suit land and defendant No.1 has spent huge amount in construction of the house, therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery damages of Rs.12,000.00 nor the amount at the rate of Rs.1000.00 per month as rental value. The defendants refuted the case of the plaintiff and they sought dismissal of the same.