RASHIDA BEGUM Vs. PHULAN ALIAS SHAKURAN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant who aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal as passed by learned first Appellate Court, has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1 Phulan alias Shakuran Begum and the defendant Rashida Begum were the daughters of plaintiff No.2 Karam Din, who was lessee of plot No.77-A comprised in Khasra No. 532 Khewat/Khatoni No. 18 min/381, situated in Sector 6-A Up-Muhal Main Market, Bilaspur. He constructed a house over this plot. Both the daughters were living in the same building. The dispute in the instant appeal relates to two rooms on the first floor of the building shown as 'ABCD' in red in the map appended with the suit in which the defendant had been living for the last about 28-30 years prior to filing of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was given these two rooms for her residence temporarily and thus her possession was permissive. Plaintiff No.2 applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur as required under the rules for according permission to transfer the plot and the house built thereon in favour of plaintiff No.1. Even though the defendant raised objections before the Deputy Commissioner, however, the same were repelled and the permission was granted to plaintiff No.2 to transfer the plot and the building existing thereon by gift in favour of plaintiff No.1 with further direction that the plaintiff shall take regular proceedings in the civil court for the eviction of the defendant from the premises in her occupation. After obtaining this permission, plaintiff No.2 executed a gift of the plot and the house existing thereon in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 29.5.1990 and this gift was duly registered. It is averred that plaintiff No.1 was put in possession of the plot and the house by plaintiff No.2 except for the two rooms which were coming in the possession of the defendant and for that the plaintiff No.2 gave symbolic possession to plaintiff No.1. Since the defendant failed to vacate these two rooms despite being permissive possession, therefore, the instant suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for possession claiming therein that the defendant's possession over these two rooms was unauthorised and illegal.

(3.) The defendant resisted and contested the suit mainly on the ground that plaintiff No.2 obtained the permission for the transfer of the plot and the house without any legal right and thus the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction and thus the transfer on the basis of such permission was void and did not confer any right, title or interest on plaintiff No.1. It was also asserted that the alleged gift was without the delivery of possession and without the acceptance of the gift by plaintiff No.1 and thus this gift was not valid and consequently no right, title or interest had been transferred in favour of plaintiff No.1 on the basis of the alleged gift. It was also asserted that plaintiff No.2 being an old man wanted to divide this property alongwith plot between two daughters and for that purpose he called the defendant to reside with him in the house and gave two rooms for her residence in the first floor. It was further averred that on 20.7.1976 the plaintiff had tried to dispossess the defendant from these premises but in spite of this attempt, the defendant did not vacate the premises by asserting her title of ownership over the same and since her possession had been coming as continuous, peaceful and without any interference and to the knowledge of plaintiff No.2, thus she had become owner (lessee) of these premises on 20.7.1988 and plaintiff No.2 having lost his right to get the possession back has no locus standi to file the instant suit. It was also averred that the defendant had spent about Rs.40,000/- on the development and repair of these premises and thus at this late stage the plaintiffs were estopped by their acts and conduct to get the possession of these premises. Apart from that, other objections qua limitation, bar of jurisdiction, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties were also raised.