Jagdish Chand vs Amar Nath and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—This regular second appeal, filed u/s 100 of the CPC was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the documents i.e. alleged sale deeds Ext.D-1 and Ext.D-2 can be seen in evidence, if so, its effect?

Whether a sale deed or a lease deed consideration for which is more than 100/- rupees can be held to be valid even without registration, if so, its effect in the present case.

Whether a minor is competent to execute the sale deed, if so, its effect in the present case?

Plaintiff Jagdish Chand filed suit for possession with respect to the suit property on the premise that his father Kanahya Lal was the original allottee of Defendant No. 2. After the death of Kanahya Lal, Plaintiff, his sister Jogindera and their mother came into possession of the same. They entered into a partnership with Prem Chand and his sons and the business was run from the suit premises. When Prem Chand expired the arrangement continued with his sons. But however in the year 1988, sons of Prem Chand handed over the possession of the shop to Defendant No. 1 Amar Nath. This was without consent and knowledge of Jagdish Chand, his mother or sister Jogindera. Thus, having been dispossessed from the suit premises Plaintiff was entitled for possession of the shop from Defendant No. 1. The suit was resisted by Amar Nath on the ground that sons of Prem Chand had entered into an agreement to sell with him with respect to the suit premises and as owners they are occupying the same.

The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1 Whether the Plaintiff was in joint possession of the suit property alongwith Prem Chand and his son as alleged, if so, its effect? ...OPP

Whether the Defendant No. 1 has trespassed into the suit property in collusion with the said Sh. Prem Singh as alleged, if so, its effect? ...OPP

3 .Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession on the suit property as prayed? ..OPP

Whether the document dated 17-4-73 is not genuine as alleged? ...OPD

Whether the Defendant No. 1 is in lawful possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement executed with Prem Chand as alleged ? ...OPD

Whether the said Sh. Prem Chand was in lawful possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement executed by the Plaintiff and her mother with him as alleged? ...OPD

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ...OPD

Whether the Plaintiff has got no legal enforceable cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? ...OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable? ...OPD

Relief.

Plaintiff''s suit was decreed by the trial Court in terms of judgment and decree dated 27.11.1992 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi and Defendant No. 1 was directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to Plaintiff Jagdish Chand.

Aggrieved thereof, Amar Nath filed an appeal which stands decided in terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 8.3.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi and the findings, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stands reversed and Plaintiff''s suit dismissed.

The crucial issue is as to whether prior to the year 1988 Plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises along with Prem Chand and his sons or as to whether he was dispossessed from the suit premises by Defendant No. 1. In support of his contentions, Plaintiff has examined four witnesses. S/Sh. Vinod Kumar (PW-1), Saraswati Devi (PW-3) and Desh Raj (PW-4) have been examined only to prove the age of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff (PW-2) in his deposition has admitted that sons of Prem Chand were actually managing the shop in partnership with him till April, 1988. According to him, they were in possession of the shop. Now sons of Prem Chand who admittedly were alive have not been examined by the Plaintiff in Court to prove the factum of partnership. Their examination was necessary for the reason that except for the bald statement made by the Plaintiff in this behalf, there is nothing on record to prove the same. What was the nature of the partnership? Who all were the partners? Who in fact are the sons of Prem Chand has not been proved. On the other hand, it has come on record that electricity connection of the shop was in the name of Prem Chand. Further, Plaintiff has not been able to show as to when, how and in what manner he was dispossessed from the suit premises. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that he was in joint possession of the shop with Prem Chand or his sons. That apart, Plaintiff has not even examined or impleaded his sister as a party to the suit. The factum of dispossession of the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1, from the suit premises thus cannot be said to have been proved by him. If at all Plaintiff had any grievance against sons of Prem Chand, he should have filed suit against them or atleast impleaded them as parties herein.

The question of legality of the document executed between the legal heirs of Prem Chand and Amar Nath is not required to be gone into in these proceedings for the simple reason that Plaintiff''s claim is not based thereupon. Suit with respect to shop built over 14 sq. yards of land was filed in the year 1988. At some stage all litigation must come to an end. I find no error in the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court. In my view no question, much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.

The present appeal without any merit is dismissed.