TARANJEET KAUR Vs. MOHAMMED AHMED & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, (H.P) , in Civil Appeal No.12- CA/13 of 2014, dated 28.5.2014, vide which, the learned lower Appellate Court, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Nahan, District Sirmaur, in Civil Suit No.45/1 of 2010, dated 20.10.2012.

(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') maintained a suit for declaration against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') alleging therein that plaintiffs are co-owners of the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No.334/463 and 464, Khasra No.2609, measuring 142-15 square meters and 2293 to 2596, kitas 4, measuring 12-56 square meters, total 154.71 square meters, situated in Mohal Haripur, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') Plaintiffs had built a small room, bathroom, latrine and courtyard in the land bearing No.2593, 2594, 2595 and 2596, whereas Khasra No.2609 remained a vacant land. The suit land was lying unused and since, defendant No.1 (mother-in-law of defendant No.2) had been living with her family adjoining to the suit property and was in need of the same for better use and enjoyment of her own property, she approached plaintiff No.2 to allow her to occupy the suit property, as a licensee in the year 1985-86. The family of plaintiff No.2 had good relations with defendant No.1 and her family, plaintiff No.2 accepted the request of defendant No.1 and permitted her to occupy the suit property, as a licensee without any fee. In the year, 2010, the defendant made an attempt to change the nature of suit property by dismantling the same and making additions or alterations without consent of the plaintiffs taking undue advantage of absence of plaintiff No.2, who was in Goa in Military service. When, plaintiff No.2 came to know about the illegal acts committed by defendants, he came to Nahan and requested the defendants to desist from causing any mischief with respect to the suit property and also directed to handover its vacant possession to him.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit and filed joint written statement whereby preliminary objections qua, nonmaintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, suppression of material facts, no proper valuation and no cause of action were taken. On merits, defendants pleaded that Municipal Council, Nahan, had granted patta No.3/70, dated 11.8.1970 of land denoted by Khasra No.2162/3, measuring 144 square yards in Mohalla Hathi-Ki-Kabar, Nahan, adjacent to the suit land and charged Rs. 1152/-. Thereafter, defendants raised construction over Khasra No.2162/3, adjacent to Khasra No.2597, measuring 16.57 square meters. The defendants purchased Khasra No.2597 metres through registered sale deed and were owner-inpossession of Khasra No.2597 and 2162/3 measuring 16.57 square metres and 100.72 square metres, respectively. The construction was raised on the suit land owned by them.