SATYA NARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. RADHESHYAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.31 of 2013, is aggrieved of the order dated 14.09.2017 by which the trial court has closed the plaintiff's evidence. He has also challenged the order dated 27.02.2018 by which the trial court has refused to recall the order dated 14.09.2017.

(2.) Briefly stated, Title Suit No.31 of 2013 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive right, title and interest over schedule-A property and for a decree for eviction of the defendant no.1 from schedule-B property; schedule-B property is comprised under schedule-A. The plaintiff has pleaded that the suit property situated over Holding no.56 at Handi Line, Sakchi, Jamshedpur was allotted to his father namely, Ram Nivas Agarwal by the defendant no.2-M/s Tata Steel Limited on 26.11.1957; the previous allotment of Plot-D at Golmuri Market through allotment dated 12.03.1955 in favour of his father was cancelled. His father constructed a single-storied building and was residing with his family along with the original defendant no.1. In course of time, another floor was added over the constructed house. After the death of his father, the plaintiff's mother executed a gift-deed on 28.07.1989 in favour of the plaintiff comprising her half share in schedule 'A'. It is pleaded that Holding no.56 over which the plaintiff has acquired absolute title was mutated in his name and a sub-lease was also executed. The defendant no.1, however, claiming himself son of Ram Nivas Agarwal approached the defendant no.2 and, subsequently, the suit property was mutated in the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 vide office note dated 16.01.2013. Objecting to this, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant no.1 and now has instituted Title Suit No.31 of 2013 for declaration of his exclusive right, title and interest in the suit property.

(3.) The defendant no.1 has filed a written-statement taking a preliminary objection on non-joinder of the State of Jharkhand which according to him is a necessary party. The description of the schedule-A and B properties has been challenged as vague and he has asserted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit. The defendant no.1 has claimed that all along he has been residing in the suit property with his father-Ram Nivas Agarwal. The Defendant no.1 claims that he is the son of Ram Niwas Agarwal through his first wife namely, Kampuri Devi and after her death Ram Niwas Agarwal married Munni Devi and the plaintiff is the son of Munni Devi. Ram Niwas Agarwal died in the year 1979 and after the death of Muni Devi, he along with the plaintiff have become joint-owners of the house standing over Holding no.56.