MADAN LAL Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) one of the defendants, madan lal in the suit instituted by respondent-ravi kumar has filed this civil 1st appeal for challenging the judgment and decree dated 31st october, 1996 passed by the learned district judge, kathua. The plaintiff filed the suit for restoration of possession of single storey pacca shop situated at village chhan datyal (chadwal morh) tehsil hira nagar and for recovery of damages to the tune of rs. 20,000/- against the appellant and respondent no. 2 under section 9 of the specific relief act, on the allegations that the plaintiff was in possession of the said shop described in the plaint as a tenant on monthly rent of rs. 125/- with effect from february 15, 1986 and agreement in this behalf stood executed between the plaintiff and the father of defendant no. 1 despite the expiry of period of tenancy, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit shop till night of 16/17th march 1992, on which date the defendant no. 1 tress-passed into the shop during the night and unlawfully removed and caused damage to the property of the plaintiff lying in the shop. The plaintiff lodged the fir, upon which the defendant no. 1 was arrested and put on trial also and convicted. The plaintiff further alleged in the suit that defendant no. 1 forcibly and otherwise than in due course of law dispossessed him from the aforesaid shop, therefore, prayed for a decree of restoration of possession of the suit shop and payment of rs. 20,000/- as damages by the defendant no. 1. The suit was brought admittedly within six months from the date of dispossession of the plaintiff. The suit was contested on various grounds before the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed the following issues :

(2.) the parties to the suit led evidence. Learned trial court, after appreciating evidence of the parties, vide his judgment dated 31st october, 1996 held :

(3.) on issue no. 2, learned trial court has not held plaintiff entitled to the damages. Consequently, learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding him entitled to a decree for restoration of the possession of the suit property under the provisions of section 9 of the specific relief act.