GHULAM MOHAMMAD MIR Vs. MOHAMMAD AKBAR THOKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Second Appeal against judgement dtd. 11/12/2012, passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for brevity "1 st Appellate Court") in an Appeal titled Ghulam Mohammad Mir v. Mohammad Akbar Thoker as also judgement and decree dtd. 17/9/2012, passed by Sub Judge, Anantnag (for short "Trial Court") and for setting aside the same.

(2.) It is the case of appellant that respondent is a resourceful person having huge property in Anantnag, including a building having five shops in its ground floor at Achabal Adda, Anantnag. The said building is said to have been constructed by respondent after forcible demolition of old building in 1998, depriving tenants, including appellant from tenanted premises. It is stated that unlawful demolition of old tenanted premises was carried out during intervening night of 111th/12/7/1998 and that in this regard FIR no.168/1998 at police station Anantnag was registered. Contention of appellant is that in order to escape from prosecution which might have led to conviction of appellant and his brothers, he arranged negotiations and settled their dispute through the offices of Byopar Mandal and its Chairman and that in this regard a document was also executed. It is claimed in the instant appeal by appellant that as against two shops, he was given one shop on lease basis at a rent of Rs.6600.00 per annum. It is also contention of appellant that contents of the deed specifically mention that tenanted premises was handed over to appellant along with possession through the said document and that respondent's brother, Ghulam Ahmad Thoker, is a practicing advocate at Anantnag and he is an associate of draftsman of the so-called licence deed and are sharing the same chambers in the premises of District Court, Anantnag. After execution of settlement, appellant, who seems to be a most innocent person, has been called to Sadder Court, Anantnag, for reducing into writing the rent deed in respect of the shop which was given to him along with possession during settlement arrived at by the parties in the meeting held on 17/7/1997.

(3.) It is also stated by the appellant in the instant appeal that he believed the story and being anxious to have a legal document reduced into writing on the basis of settlement came to the chambers of Mohammad Amin, Advocate, who drafted the document wrongly styled as Licence Deed and signed it. According to appellant the document was cleverly drafted with a view to show that it is a licence deed. It is also averred that on the basis of the said document, respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against appellant/defendant directing vacation of premises and recovery of Rs.3791.00 as arrears of fee for occupation of shop along with damages and there is no claim made by respondent/ plaintiff for handing over the possession to him. Written statement was filed by appellant/defendant.