PREM CHAND Vs. BABUR RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the verdict recorded by the learned first appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 99-N/2000, wherethrough, the first appellate Court rather reversed the judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned trial Judge, and hence, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs are aggrieved therefrom, hence motion this Court, through the instant Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Prem Chand claimed himself to be owner in possession of suit property, consisting of two rooms and verandah, which was previously owned by Nathu Ram, the father of the plaintiff and appellant Babu Ram, father-in-law of defendant No. 2 Rattni Devi and grand father of defendants No. 3 to 6. As per plaintiff, Nathu Ram, was tenant at Willon the land of original owner and had constructed his residential Abadi and acquired the proprietary rights. Nathu Ram had four sons, namely the plaintiff Prem Chand, defendant No.1,Gian Chand and Jaishi Ram. Jaishi Ram and Gian Chand got separated from Nathu Ram, and also constructed their own Abadi and were living separately for more than 38 years. Defendant/appellant Babu Ram also got separated from his father, in the year 1975-76, but he was not having his own house, therefore, he continued to live with Nathu Ram. Plaintiff used to serve his parents. Defendants No. 1 and 2 Babu Ram and Rattni Devi never served Nathu, and in lieu of the services rendered by plaintiff, Nathu Ram executed a registered Will dated 1.6.1979. It was further alleged that defendants No. 1 and 2, sought permission to live in the house of Nathu Ram from the plaintiff and the plaintiff allowed them to stay in the house. The name of defendant No. 1, in the revenue record as Hissedar alongwith plaintiff was wrong and against the factual position. The entire residential Abadi owned by Nathu Ram, after his death, came to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to take back the possession of residential house from the defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff and defendants also enters into a compromise on 17.11.1991 and as per the said compromise defendant No. 1, agreed to vacate the disputed portion in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and also to provide adjacent land for the residence of defendant No. 1 and to deduct Rs. 1200/- from Rs. 5000, as value of the trees. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and as such filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the Contract Act.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement to the effect that defendant No. 1 alongwith plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 7 purchased the land comprised in Khata No. 105, Khatauni No. 166, 169, Khasra Number 201 min 201, land measuring 20 kanals 10 marlas, vide registered sale deed dated 28.1.1971 from Surjit Singh and thereafter all the parties except the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 separated from each other. The defendant No. 1 constructed the residential house over the said land and Nathu Ram the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 also held defendant No. 1 in the construction of house to the extent of half share as owners. It was denied that the residential Abadi continued to be owned and possessed by Nathu Ram till his death. It was further denied that the defendant No. 1, got separated from his father Nathu Ram since 1977. It is denied that Nathu Ram while in sound disposing state of mind, voluntarily executed a Will dated 1.6.1979 in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of the services rendered by the plaintiff. It was also denied that the defendant No. 1 entered into any compromise on 17.11.1991 with the plaintiff.