HUKAMCHAND GUPTA AND ORS. Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Alwar, and by the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar. By the former judgment and decree the learned Magistrate had decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent -plaintiff. By the latter judgment and decree the learned Judge had upheld the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence this second appeal before this Court.

(2.) MS . Sangeeta Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent, has raised the preliminary objection that the case is entirely based on questions of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. Hence this second appeal is not maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Mathur, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has contended that substantial questions of law do arise. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2005 clearly reveals that Jagdish Prasad had instituted a suit for eviction and for mandatory injunction. According to Jagdish Prasad, he had bought a plot situated in khasra No. 427 admeasuring 1 bigha 8 biswa, which he had bought from his own personal income. Subsequently, the said plot was converted into a residential plot. He had constructed a room on the said plot. Thereafter, dispute arose within his full family. However, considering the difficulty faced by his own son, Hukam Chand, the appellant before this Court, his father permitted him to stay in his house as a licensee. However, when dispute arose between him and his son, the appellant, he sought the eviction of his son. However, the appellant refused to do so. Hence the civil suit.