DHARAM PAL Vs. KAILASHO DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for vacant possession of the suit property, stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the defendants, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit against original defendant one Hem Raj (now deceased) for vacant possession of premises comprising single storeyed situated on part of Khasra No.1156 as shown in the site plan and for recovery of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of the amount. It has been pleaded that land comprised in Khata No.243 min, Khatauni No.490, Khasra No.156, measuring 0-0097 hectares, situated in mohal and mouza Thakurdwara, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P., is shown to be iin the name of Bihari Lal, Kartara, Harnam Singh Brahmmo, Hazara Singh, Dasaundi Ram, Charan Dass, Parsinno, Vedo, Karmo, Swaran Kaur, Lachhman and Mehnga etc., while predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff, namely, Kesar Ram son of Sarno has been shown in possession as Kabiz and nature of the land is shown as gair mumkin shop. It is pleaded that in fact, Kesar Singh predecessor-ininterest of plaintiff took over possession of suit land in the year 1972-73 and constructed single stored two shops, three rooms walls and gates in Khasra No.1156 as shown in the site plan. It is further pleaded that Kesar Singh died on 110.1998 and before his death he had executed a registered Will with respect to his movable and immovable property in favour of the plaintiff. The said Will was registered on 7.4.1998. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, the plaintiff became the owner in possession of construction so raised by his father Kesar Singh and his predecessor namely Samo. It is pleaded that plaintiff became owner of construction by way of Will and also purchased land in Khata where construction is situated from one co-sharer Swaran Kaur on 8.9.2000 by way of registered sale deed. It is pleaded that deceased defendant Hem Raj, after the death of his father took forcible possession over part of construction on dated 110.1998 and possession of defendant is that of trespasser. It is submitted that defendant is co-sharer in Khata but not in structure situated in khasra No.1156. It is pleaded that plaintiff asked deceased defendant to vacate the possession of said structure which he has forcibly occupied but defendant did not accept request of plaintiff. Hence the sit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. It is submitted that the father of replying defendant, namely, Hem Raj deceased had purchased land from original owners Bihari, Kartara, Harbans Singh sons of Hira vide sale deed No.60 of 17.01.2001 for consideration of Rs.5000/-. It has been pleaded that father of defendant namely Hem Raj had constructed two shops in Khasra No.1156 in the year 1980 and three rooms over suit land during settlement operation but settlement authorities had wrongly recorded the name of father of Hem Raj. It is further pleaded that father of defendant opened bicycle repair shop during settlement operation.