Kedar Nath and Others vs Bahadur Mal Sharma and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is a regular second appeal brought by three of the defendants arraying the 4th as proforma respondent with respect to a house situated in the abadi of village Loharu, Tehsil Loharu District Bhiwani properly detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Bahadur Mal Sharma, Satish and Umed had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the house in question or dismantling it. Their suit has been decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Loharu vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 and the appeal preferred against the same by the appellants failed before learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2012. As per the case of the plaintiffs, Sagarmal, their father was owner in possession of the house in dispute. After his death, the plaintiffs inherited the same. The water connection of the house in dispute was in the name of Sagarmal and after his death, it is in the name of plaintiff Satish. The plaintiffs have their voter cards and ration cards on the address of this house. Electric connection for this house is also in the name of their mother who has now died. The defendants have no right or concern whatsoever with the same. They are head strong persons and are out to interfere with the peaceful possession over the house in question and hence, the suit.

The defendants took the pleas of maintainability in the present form as well as jurisdiction and cause of action as preliminary objections. On merits, they denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that the house in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by Basant Lal and Dhansi Ram who had the same vide gift deed dated 20.3.1944. According to him, Basant Lal and Dhansi Ram have died and defendants No. 1 and 2 being son of Basant Lal and defendant No. 3 being son of Dhansi Ram have become owners in possession of the house in question. The plaintiffs are said to have no concern with the house in question.

On filing of the replication by the plaintiffs, the parties went to trial on the following issues:

(1). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

(2). Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(3). Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

(4). Relief.

The parties led their respective evidence. Learned trial court found the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the house in question and, therefore, entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Learned trial court found no evidence worth the name in favour of the defendants.

As already said, the appeal preferred by the defendants before learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2012.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the bills produced on the record are not proved to belong to the house in question. According to him, oral evidence had been led on both the sides and thus, the plaintiffs-respondents clearly failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. Admittedly, the house in dispute is situated in the abadi deh of Loharu. There is no ownership record of the properties in the abadi deh. Regarding possession, the plaintiffs have led overwhelming evidence. The defendants had claimed their predecessors, namely, Basant Lal and Dhansi Ram to have become owners of the house in question by way of gift deed dated 20.3.1944, but they have failed to prove the said gift deed on record. What they produced on record is a photocopy thereof. They have not even put on record any document to show that they are in possession of the house in question. Therefore, the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and there arise no questions of law much less substantial questions of law in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine.