Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 188 (PNJ)

Salochna Devi And Anr. v. Jagat Singh

2000-02-15

M.L.SINGHAL

body2000
Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. This regular Second appeal has been filed by Salochana Devi and her husband defendants (appellants herein) against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1997 whereby Additional District Judge, Rupnagar dismissed their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1995 of Sub Judge, IInd Class, Anandpur Sahib who decreed the suit of Jagar Singh plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the residential premises shown by letters ABCDEFGHA as described in the heading of the plaint, owned by him but possessed by them (defendants) as licensees. 2. Facts: Jagat Singh is father. Salochna Devi is, his daughter and Dilbag Singh is Salochna Devis husband. Jagat Singh filed suit for mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the residential premises ABCDEFGHA on the allegations that about 10 years ago. Dilbag Singh alongwith his wife i.e. Salochna Devi and his family shifted to Delhi from his village in connection with business, Up to January, 1990 they stayed at Delhi. In January, 1990, they came to the plaintiff and told him that their business had totally failed and they were unable to make both ends meet. They requested the plaintiff to let them reside in his house for a few months and thereafter they would leave the house on getting job or some other alternative. He agreed to keep them with him looking to their sad plight and also that they were his son-in-law and daughter and he allowed them to reside in his newly constructed house as licensees under him. He requested them to vacate the house when Dilbag Singh became settled and started earning. He terminated the license. They threatened that they would not vacate the residential house, although license in their favour had been terminated. 3. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff is the owner of residential premises. Plaintiff has two daughters namely Salochna Devi and Usha Devi and one son Parlad. Salochna Devi was married to Dilbag Singh in 1967. At the time of marriage the site in dispute was given to Salochna Devi in Kanya Dan. At the time of marriage of Salochna Devi, Usha Devi was studying in second class and Parlad was studying in first class. Dilbag Singh was treated as son by the plaintiff. Jagat Singh retired as havildar from the army in 1970. At the time of marriage the site in dispute was given to Salochna Devi in Kanya Dan. At the time of marriage of Salochna Devi, Usha Devi was studying in second class and Parlad was studying in first class. Dilbag Singh was treated as son by the plaintiff. Jagat Singh retired as havildar from the army in 1970. Jagat Singh could not pull on well with his left overs, minor daughter and son. Defendants shifted to Delhi in 1967. Defendant was working as labour contractor and managing a hotel at UP Border Ghaziabad and was managing the labour employed by transport corporation at UP Border, Ghaziabad. They were supporting the plaintiff and his minor children. They paid Rs. 15,000/- for the sinking of well in the plaintiffs, fields because there was no such feeling that the plaintiff was different from them. Original house of the plaintiff was consisted of four room one baithak, kitchen and store which was sufficient for the needs of the plaintiff. Defendants constructed house in two lots with the funds exclusively belonging to them. Dilbag Singh defendant sold land belonging to him in village Dhanpur, District Una, Himachal Pradesh for Rs.8,000/-. He sold two plots at UP Border, Ghaziabad for Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 1,35,000/- and out of these funds, he constructed the residential house on the land given to them by Jagat Singh in the year, 1967 at the time of their marriage in Kanya dan. Plaintiff had no means either to support himself and his family or raise construction. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of suit property? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP 3. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by time? OPD 5. Relief. 5. Subordinate Judge, IInd Class, Anandpur Sahib decreed the plaintiffs suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the residential premises as described in the heading of the plaint in view of his finding that they were occupying the residential premises belonging to the plaintiff as licensees and they had no right to keep occupying those premises after the license in their favour had been terminated. 6. 6. Aggrieved from this judgment and decree dated 8.2.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, IInd Class, Anandpur Sahib, Salochna Devi and Dilbag Singh went in appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 18.8.1997. 7. Still not satisfied, defendants are before this Court through this regular second appeal. 8. Jagat Singh plaintiff stated that he is owner of the site in dispute. He raised construction on the site in dispute in the year, 1989. Salochna Devi and her husband earlier were residing in village Dhanpur. Thereafter they shifted to Delhi in connection with business. In the beginning they had good business and then their business failed. They came to him in the year, 1990 and requested him to give them shelter. He permitted them to reside in these premises. He called upon them to vacate these premises and he terminated the permission which he had given to them. After the termination of the permission in their favour they did not vacate the premises. He never gave the site in dispute in dowry/Kanya dan at the time of marriage to them. 9. Defendant Dilbag Singh on the other hand stated that at the time of his marriage with Salochna Devi daughter of Jagat Singh plaintiff site in dispute was given to them in dowry/Kanya dan. He gave them 9 marlas of site out of 2 kanals 4 marlas of site belonging to him. His father-in-law retired in 1970. He bore expense on the marriage of. his wifes sister and brother. His Father-in-law came to him at Delhi. He gave him Rs. 15,000/- for sinking well in his land. He raised two rooms in the year, 1988 on this site. He raised two room on this site in 1991. House is electrified and the meter is in his name. 10. There is no evidence that the site in dispute was given to Dilbag Singh and his wife at the time of marriage in the year, 1967. Site in dispute is owned by Jagat Singh. Dilbag Singh could not prove that the construction was raised by him on this site. He has not proved the purchase of any building material by him. Site in dispute is owned by Jagat Singh. Dilbag Singh could not prove that the construction was raised by him on this site. He has not proved the purchase of any building material by him. After the plaintiff had been proved to be owner of the site in dispute, it lay upon the defendants to prove that the site in dispute had been given to them by the plaintiff in Kanya dan and construction was raised by them on the site in dispute. 11. It was found concurrently by the two Courts below on consideration of evidence that the plaintiff was owner of the site in dispute. He raised construction therein at his own expense and he had permitted the defendants who are his daughter and son-in-law to reside in these premises till they could arrange some other alternative accommodation. I do not think there was any mis-appreciation of evidence by them. Plaintiffs suit was quite maintainable as the defendants were mere licensees and the plaintiff was a licenser. In case of licensee, legal possession is with the licensor. It is only permission with the licensee to use the premises. A licensee continues at the will of the licensor. Said license is terminable at the will of the licensor. 12. For the reasons given above, this regular second appeal fails and is dismissed.