BISHAMBER Vs. KRISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the petitioners, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Rohru on 24.10.2008 whereby the summary suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the 'Act') came to be decreed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Kalmi Nand was having four sons Raghu Dass, Shiv Sukh, Jai Lal and Kagdi Ram. Kagdi Ram and Jai Lal had separated from Raghu Dass and Shiv Sukh and had taken their shares out of the joint property some times before the death of Raghu Dass and, therefore, had nothing to do with the property in the hands of Raghu Dass and Shiv Sukh. A family partition also took place between the heirs of Raghu Dass and Shiv Sukh. Raghu Dass was survived by Shishi Ram, who partitioned the property between his sons on 10.3.1992 and three storeyed house situateed in land comprising Khasra No. 594/2, measuring 15 x 14 = 210 feet in Abadi of village Jakhnoti, Tehsil Chirgaon, out of Khasra No. 538 min (old) and 594 (new) was allotted to the plaintiff in such family partition. The plaintiff came into possession over the disputed house w.e.f. 10.3.1992. The defendants by showing muscle powers alongwith other persons formed an unlawful assembly and had dispossessed the plaintiff and his family members from such house by putting their locks over the same. Even though the plaintiff tried to show resistance but a quarrel took place which led to registration of a police case in this behalf. The plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed house without any legal right and in an unlawful manner, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding competency, maintainability, plaintiff having not approached the Court with clean hands, improper valuation and non-joinder of necessary parties were raised. On merits, it was averred that the suit had been merely filed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and being devoid of any merit should be dismissed. The factum of family partition was also denied and it was asserted that in fact a false story had been concocted with a view to grab the property which had fallen to the share of the defendants and their ancestors. The factum of forcible dispossession was also denied. Finally, a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.