MURLIDHAR AND ORS. Vs. SHRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants, Murlidhar and others, have preferred this first appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.05.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 57/2006 -Shrilal v. Murlidhar, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for possession in respect of suit property situated at Lakhotiya -Ka -Chowk, behind Narsingh Temple, Bikaner, has been decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession to the suit premises i.e. situated at Lakhotiya -Ka -Chowk, behind Narsingh Temple, Bikaner, of which Patta No. 138 dated 13.12.1950 was issued by the Tehsil - Malmandi. After the death of father of plaintiff, the suit premises came in his share in the family partition, which took place on 17.05.1991. The plaintiff filed the said suit for possession on the ground that the suit premises was given the father of the defendant, namely, Sh. Brijratan, to take care as they were residing outside. The father of the defendants was residing in the suit premises with his family. The respondents/plaintiff after the death of father defendant, allowed the defendants in the permissive possession of the suit premises. The defendants with an intention to grab the suit property tried to transfer water and electricity connection in their name, however, they could not succeed in the same. The water and electricity connection till today are in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants while breaking open the locks put on the rooms, illegally take over the possession of the same. The defendants further made an abortive attempt by letting out the said rooms to one Guru -Kripa Coaching Centre. When the plaintiff raised his objections and asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, they refused to do same and even denied the ownership of the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter on 09.06.2006 terminated the tenancy by sending a registered notice on 12.06.2006 (Exhibit -4), however, the same was not replied by the defendants. The respondent/plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for possession and eviction against the defendants.

(3.) FROM the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and in documentary evidence produced Exhibit -1, Patta, Exhibit -2 final decree passed by High of Calcutta, Exhibit -3 letter, Exhibit -4 legal notice and postal receipts Exhibits 5 to 7 and proved the same. The defendants also examined two witnesses.