GAFOOR KHAN & ORS Vs. AMIRUDDIN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent Amiruddin and his wife Smt. Hasmat (since deceased) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act') was partly decreed and the petitioners herein were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs; the relief seeking mesne profit was rejected and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed thus: a suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 13.10.1980, inter alia, with the averments that the suit property, a house situated at village Rashmi, Tehsil Rashmi, District Chittorgarh was owned and possessed by Nathe Khan, Mst. Roshan, Mst. Jameela and Mst. Amna, who by executing agreements dated 07.05.1980 handed over the possession of the suit property to them; the sale deeds were executed on 26.07.1980 and registered on 02.08.1980; on 28.07.1980 the defendants illegally took possession of the house by breaking open the locks; from before 07.05.1980 Nathe Khan, Mst. Roshan, Mst. Jameela and Mst. Amna were in possession and from 07.05.1980 plaintiffs were in peaceful possession; the plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profit @ Rs. 10/- per day w.e.f. 28.07.1980.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the petitionersdefendants, who are son, grand children and relatives of said Nathe Khan, inter alia, disputing the possession and ownership of Nathe Khan, Mst. Roshan, Mst. Jameela and Mst. Amna and it was claimed that they were in possession for over 40 years of the said house; Nathe Khan and his daughters said Roshan, Jameela and Amna had no right to execute sale deeds and the same were void against them; as the defendants are in possession of the suit property, the possession could not have been handed over to the plaintiffs; the allegations relating to possession of the plaintiffs and dispossession were denied and it was alleged that by executing the sale deeds, the plaintiffs and Nathe Khan wanted to dispossess them from the suit property.