Ashok vs Smt. Natho Devi

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 16.09.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Natho Devi seeking a mandatory injunction and damages against her Defendant/ son had been decreed in her favour. The Defendant had been directed to vacate the suit property.

The plaintiff claimed herself to be the registered owner of property bearing No. 129/61, East Laxmi Market, Delhi-110092; plaintiff''s son was occupying one room, kitchen and common latrine and both room at ground floor in the suit property. The Defendant misbehaved with the plaintiff. On 26.06.2007, the plaintiff had debarred the Defendant from her properties, both moveable and Immovable and severed her relations with him. His license was duly terminated. He was requested to vacate the suit property but he did not. Present suit was filed for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to vacate the suit property as also damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per month.

In the written statement, it was contended the suit property is an ancestral property and the plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant. Issues were framed. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the respective parties, suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The plaintiff had proved the sale deed of the suit property Ex. PW-1/B. Site plan had been proved as Ex.PW-1/A. Notice terminating the license of the Defendant dated 26.06.2007 was Ex. PW-1/E.

In appeal the judgment of the trial court was upheld. The judgment of the trial court called for no interference.

This is a second appeal. It is yet at its admission stage. The substantial questions of law have been formulated on pages 10-11. They read as follows:

(1) "Whether any license for living in the premises can be granted or cancelled by any person or his/her authorised representative, who is not the owner of land/premises?

(2) Whether an unauthorized occupant of land can grant/cancel any license for living on the said land to any person without permission of the owner?

(3) Whether an unauthorized occupant of land can evict any other occupation from the land?

(4) Whether a person can be said to be the owner of the property without any title-document/sale-deed?

(5) Whether a person, who is not owner nor authorized representative of owner of land can issue license to the occupier of land?

(6) Whether as per revenue record, produced by witness can be ignored, it is established that Smt. Natho Devi was not the owner of Khasra No. 36/24 and its parts 1 to 4 and also in khasra No. 36/23/2, no mutation has been recorded in the name of Smt. Natho Devi as per revenue record?

(7) Whether a person can claim ownership on the basis of sale-deed of the land without proving its genuineness?"

Admittedly the parties were sharing the relationship of mother and son. The contention before this Court is that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property; attention has been drawn to the cross-examination of PW-1 (the plaintiff) wherein she had stated that this property was gifted to her; it is submitted that the sale deed depicting a sale in her favour is thus a contrary plea.

Ex. PW-1B which is the sale deed dated 05.04.1972 had been executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his three married daughters who had been described as vendees. This is a registered document. It was duly proved in the court below. This is also the averment of the plaintiff in her plaint. She is claiming ownership of the suit property in terms of her registered ownership by virtue of this sale deed. It was in the defense of the Defendant that he had stated that this is an ancestral property. The sale deed transferring rights in the said Immovable property by the father of the plaintiff in her favour and her two other sisters was for a consideration of Rs. 275/-. This document was admittedly executed between a father and his three daughters. The one line in the cross-examination of the plaintiff wherein she had stated that this property was gifted to her does not take the case of the Defendant any far. Testimony of a witness has to be read as a whole and not in piece-meal. In the written statement, the defence of the Defendant was that the suit property is an ancestral property whereas subsequently he had introduced an altogether a new story before the first appellate court submitting that his mother is not the owner of the suit property. This had been noted in the impugned judgment.

The plaintiff had been able to prove that she was the owner of the suit property; the Defendant only being a licensee was rightly evicted from the suit property. No substantial question of law has arisen. There is no merit in this appeal.

Appeal is dismissed in liming.