Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 406 (RAJ)

Inder Singh v. Bheem Singh

2016-03-11

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. This unfortunate fight between the two real brothers has been brought up before this Court by the appellant/plaintiff, Inder Singh S/o late Sh. Loonsingh Rajpurohit, against his younger brother, namely, Bheem Singh S/o late Sh. Loonsingh, in respect of suit property, a plot of land ad-measuring 21' x 54', situated in Village-Dhariya, Tehsil-Desuri, upon which the appellant/plaintiff constructed two rooms, one Hall, Chowk, Kitchen, store, bathroom, varanda, etc. after seeking requisite permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. 2. The appellant/plaintiff, Inder Singh, was in service of Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank, and undisputedly, the Patta No. 49/77 dated 19.06.1980 (Exhibit-2) was issued in respect of said plot of land by the concerned Gram Panchayat-Dhariya, in the name of plaintiff, Inder Singh. Since, the plaintiff/appellant was serving at Jodhpur, he gave permissive possession of the part of the said house to his younger brother, Bheem Singh, on 01.08.1996 for a period of two years. The father of the parties, late Sh. Loon Singh, expired on 27.03.2002 but before his death, he executed a Will on 17.12.1989 (Exhibit-1) in favour of his three sons, viz. two being parties to the present suit and other one Sh. Dalpat Singh. However, said brother, Dalpat Singh, having no lis in the present case, was not a party to the present suit, which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for seeking possession of the suit house in question from the defendant, Bheem Singh and the mesne profits. 3. The learned trial court, however, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.05.2003 rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff basically on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff has failed to prove the Will (Exhibit-11) dated 17.12.1989 of the father, late Sh. Loon Singh, and also that the neighbourhood of the Patta (Exhibit-2) dated 19.06.1980 and as given in the Will and later on in the Notice revoking the licence of the defendant was different. Loon Singh, and also that the neighbourhood of the Patta (Exhibit-2) dated 19.06.1980 and as given in the Will and later on in the Notice revoking the licence of the defendant was different. The relevant portion of the trial court's order is quoted herein below for ready reference: - fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dh cgl lquhA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh bUnjflag ih0MCY;w0 1 us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa crk;k gS fd xzke <+kfj;k esa mldk jgoklh edku vk;k gqvk gSA mlds edku ds mRrj esa pSuflag dk edku gS] nf{k.k esa vke jkLrk gS] iwoZ esa y{e.kflag dk edku gS rFkk if'pe esa pSuflag dk edku gSA ;g edku 21 x 54 QhV ds uki ds IyksV ij cuk gqvk gSA edku dk uD'kk ,Xth0 1 gSA ,Xth0 1 uD'kk vCnqy djhc M~k~VeSu ls cuok;k FkkA bl IyksV ij igys mlds firkth us dCtk fd;k FkkA mlds firkth us iV~Vk bl IyksV ij esjs uke ls cuok;k Fkk tks ,Xth0 2 gS] bldh QksVks izfr ,Xth0 2&, gSA iV~Vk cuokdj esjs firkth us iapk;r ls izkIr fd;k Fkk ftlds izkIr gksus dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi ,Xth0 3 gSA bl ij esjs firkth ds , ls ch gLrk{kj gSA bl IyksV ij fuekZ.k dk;Z eSaus djok;k FkkA fuekZ.k dk;Z djokus gsrq xzke iapk;r <+kfj;k ls vuqefr izkIr dh FkhA eSaus esjs fu;ksDrk cSad tks/kiqj lsUV~y dks&vksijsfVo cSad tks/kiqj ls edku fuekZ.k djus gsrq _.k fy;k Fkk rFkk blds vykok esjs Lo;a ds lalk/kuksa ls jde tqVkdj fuekZ.k dk;Z djok;k FkkA edku ds fuekZ.k dk;Z esa 80000@& :i;s ykxr yxh FkhA _.k Lohd`fr vkns'k ,Xth0 4 gSA mlds ckn edku dh ejEer djokus ds fy, Hkh _.k fy;k Fkk ftldk vkns'k ,Xth0 5 gSA eSaus cSad ls tks _.k fy;k Fkk mldk pqdrk Hkqxrku dj fn;k Fkk ftldk uks M;wt izek.k i= ,Xth0 6 gSA bl edku esa fo|qr dusD'ku eSaus esjs uke ls fy;k Fkk ftlds fcy ,Xth0 7 ls 9 gSA esjs firkth yw.kflag dk nsgkUr fnukad 27-03-2002 dks gks x;k gSA esjs firkth us e`R;q ls iwoZ bPNk i= fu"ikfnr fd;k Fkk tks ,Xth0 11 gSA bPNk i= esjs :c: fd;k Fkk ftl ij , ls ch gLrk{kj esjs firkth yw.kflag us esjs le{k fd;s FksA bl ij lh ls Mh lk[k nsohflag us o bZ ls ,Q lk[k iksdjnkl us Mkyh FkhA ,Xth0 11 dks uksVjh ls lR;kfir djok;k FkkA bl bPNk i= ds vuqlkj oknxzLr edku esjs firkth us eq>s olh;r djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh FkhA esjs firkth ds thoudky rd ;g olh;rukek izHkkoh jgk FkkA eSa tks/kiqj esa o"kZ 1971 ls LFkk;h :i ls jg jgk gwWaA eSa tc Hkh xkWao vkrk Fkk rc bl fooknxzLr edku esa jgrk FkkA oknh dk vkxs ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Hkheflag izfroknh mldk NksVk HkkbZ gSA oknxzLr edku esa Hkheflag dk vf/kdkj ugha yxrk gSA Hkheflag dks ,d IyksV olh;r esa fn;k Fkk ml ij edku cuokuk Fkk Hkheflag dks bl 'krZ ij esjs edku esa jgus dh vuqefr nh Fkh fd tc rd og viuk edku ugha cuk ysA eSaus tc Hkheflag dks bl edku esa jgus dh vuqefr nh mlds igys Hkheflag us esjk lkeku edku esa ls gVk fn;k FkkA eSaus xkWao esa ekstht O;fDr;ksa ,oa esjs firkth ds dgus ls Hkheflag dks fooknxzLr edku esa jgus dh vuqefr nh FkhA eSaus Hkheflag dks lky nks lky rd fooknxzLr edku esa jgus dh vuqefr nh FkhA eSaus edku dk vkaf'kd Hkkx Hkheflag dks fn;k FkkA esjs dCts esa ,d dejk] ,d LVksj ,oa ,d jlksbZ oknxzLr edku esa jgh Fkh tks Hkheflag dks jgus nsus ds i'pkr~ jgh FkhA dejs esa esjk QuhZpj] fcLrj ,oa vU; lkeku iM+k FkkA nks lky ckn Hkheflag us tc edku [kkyh ugha fd;k rks eSaus xkWao ds ekstht O;fDr;ksa ,oa esjs firkth dks bdV~Bs fd;s rc mlus dgk fd esjs edku cukus esa FkksM+s fnu yxsaxs blfy;s eSaus 5&6 eghus vkSj jgus dh vuqefr nh FkhA esjs firkth dk nsgkUr tks/kiqj esa gqvk FkkA esjs firkth dk vafre laLdkj xzke <+kfj;k esa fd;k FkkA esjs firkth dk 'ko ysdj ge xkWao vk, ,oa edku esa izos'k djus yxs rks esjs HkkbZ us gesa edku esa izos'k djus ugha fn;kA fQj esjs firkth ds 'ko dks ewyflag esjs dkdk ds edku esa ys x;sA esjs firkth ds vafre fdz;kdze o vU; lkekftd jLe esjs dkdkth ewyflag ds edku esa gqbZ FkhA esjs firkth ds ckjg fnuksa esa Hkh ge gekjs dkdkth ds edku esa gh jgs FksA esjs firkth ds 12 fnu iwjs gksus ds ckn eSaus esjs HkkbZ Hkheflag dks dgk fd vc esjh ekrk dks ;gkWa j[kuk ,oa esjs cPps ;gkWa jgsaxs blfy, edku [kkyh dj nks fdUrq mlus edku [kkyh ugha fd;k ,oa edku ds ftl Hkkx esa esjk dCtk Fkk ml Hkkx ij Hkh mlus dCtk dj fy;k rFkk esjk lkeku xk;c dj fn;k FkkA eSaus Hkheflag dks edku [kkyh djokus gsrq uksfVl fnyok;k Fkk tks ,Xth0 12 gSA Hkheflag us mldk tokc fHktok;k tks ,Xth0 13 gSA Hkheflag us tks uksfVl esa ckrs fy[kh gS os xyr fy[kh gSA eq>s Hkheflag }kjk esjk edku [kkyh ugha djus ls 700&800 :i;s dk ekgokjh uqdlku gks jgk gSA tks/kiqj esa esjs edku gS tks esjs llqjky okys dk fy;k gqvk gS rFkk esjh /keZiRuh ds uke dk gSA oknh us vius okni= ,oa c;kuksa esa okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSfl;ksa ds e/; ds edku ij viuk LokfeRo mlds uke ls iapk;r <+kfj;k }kjk iznRr fodz; foys[k ,Xth0 2 ,oa bPNk i= ,Xth0 11 ds vk/kkj ij crk;k gSA tgkWa rd okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds edku ds LokfeRo dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa oknh }kjk fd;s x;s dFkuksa ,oa mlds uke ls iapk;r }kjk iznRr fodz; foys[k ,Xth0 2 esa of.kZr iM+kSl esa fHkUurk gSA oknh us vius okn i= ,oa c;kuksa esa fookfnr edku ds mRrj ,oa if'pe esa pSuflag dk edku crk;k gS fd rFkk nf{k.k esa vke jkLrk crk;k gS ,oa iwoZ esa y{e.k flag dk edku crk;k gS tcfd iV~Vk ,Xth0 2 esa ioZ esa vUujkt dk edku] if'pe esa yky flag dk edku] mRrj esa Hkxk pkS/kjh dk edku ,oa nf{k.k esa vke jkLrk crk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ,Xth0 2 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds edku ds laca/k esa oknh dk iapk;r <+kfj;k }kjk iV~Vk ,Xth0 2 iznRr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds e/; ds edku ij oknh viuk LokfeRo fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gSA blds vfrfjDr oknh us ,Xth0 11 bPNk i= }kjk mls ;g edku vius firk }kjk fn;k tkuk of.kZr fd;k gSA fdUrq ,Xth0 11 bPNk i= ds voyksdu ls Hkh Li"V gS fd bl bPNk i= esa fjgk;'kh tk;nkn dkWye la0 2 esa tks iM+kSl of.kZr dh x;h gS mlesa edku ds iwoZ fn'kk esa vujkt dh tk;nkn gksuk of.kZr fd;k x;k gSA tcfd okn i= ds in la[;k ,d esa oknh us tks edku ds iM+kSl of.kZr fd;s gSa mlesa iwoZ fn'kk esa y{e.k flag dk edku crk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ,Xth0 2 esa of.kZr iM+kSl ,oa oknh }kjk of.kZr iM+kSl esa Hkh fHkUurk gSA tgkWa rd bPNk i= ,Xth0 11 ds fu"ikfnr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS ,oa mls U;k;ky; esa lkfcr djk;s tkus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa oknh us fdlh Hkh vuqizek.kd lk{kh dks U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gSA ,Xth0 11 esa vuqizek.kd lk{kh ds :i esa nsohflag ,oa iksdjnkl ds gLrk{kj djok;s x;s gSa fdUrq bu nksuksa vuqizek.kd lk{kh esa ls fdlh Hkh lk{kh dks bPNk i= lkfcr djkus ds fy, U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gS] u gh bPNk i= ds ys[kd dks U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA bPNk i= ,Xth0 11 ij tks gLrk{kj , ls ch yw.kflag ds crk;s x;s gS mu gLrk{kjksa dk feyku ,Xth0 3 ij tks yw.kflag ds gLrk{kj gS] ls djus ij nksuksa gLrk{kjksa esa fHkUurk utj vkth gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ,Xth0 11 fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA oknh us vius okn i= ds lkFk edku dk uD'kk ,Xth0 1 izLrqr fd;k gS] ml uD'ks esa Hkh dksbZ iM+kSl of.kZr ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g fo'okl fd;k tk lds fd ,Xth0 11 uD'kk okn i= ds iSjk uacj ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl e/; ds edku dh ckcr gh izLrqr fd;k x;kA oknh us vius okni= esa ,oa c;kuksa esa ;g crk;k gS fd eSaus xkWao ds ekstht O;fDr;ksa ds dgus ls Hkheflag dks oknxzLr edku esa jgus dh vuqefr nh Fkh ,oa eSaus edku dk vkaf'kd Hkkx Hkheflag dks fn;k FkkA fdUrq oknh us bl laca/k esa Hkh ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gS ftlls ;g fo'okl fd;k tk lds fd xkWao ds ekstht O;fDr;ksa ds le{k izfroknh dks oknxzLr edku esa jgus dh vuqefr oknh us nh gksA oknh us vius okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 6 esa of.kZr fd;k gS fd tqykbZ 96 esa oknh dh vuqifLFkfr esa izfroknh us oknh ds LokfeRo ds vkaf'kd Hkkx ij dCtk djds mldk mi;ksx djuk 'kq: fd;kA ysfdu mlus vius c;ku esa ,oa okn i= esa dgha Hkh ;g of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd izfroknh us oknxzLr edku ds fdl vkaf'kd Hkkx ij ,oa fdl :i esa dCtk dj mldk mi;ksx miHkksx djuk 'kq: fd;kA oknh }kjk izfroknh dks oknxzLr edku ds laca/k esa tks iwoZ esa uksfVl fn;k x;k ,oa ml uksfVl dks tks tokc izfroknh ds vf/koDrk us fn;k gS ml tokc dh izfroknh us vius okni= ds lkFk izLrqr dh gSA ml tokc esa izfroknh us oknxzLr edku ds laca/k esa oknh ds LokfeRo dks vLohdkj fd;k gS rFkk oknh ds LokfeRo dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, Lo;a dks oknxzLr edku dk Lokeh gksuk iznf'kZr fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh ds fy, vko';d Fkk fd og okni= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds e/; ds edku ij viuk LokfeRo lkfcr djrkA fdUrq oknh ftl izys[k ,Xth0 2 ds vk/kkj ij viuk okni= yk;k gS ml izys[k ds vk/kkj ij okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds edku ij viuk LokfeRo fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gSA oknh us vius okni= esa ;g Hkh of.kZr fd;k gS fd mls vius firk dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ tkudkjh feyh fd edku ds 'ks"k Hkkx ij Hkh izfroknh us dCtk dj fy;kA fdUrq mlus vius c;kuksa esa dgha ;g Li"V ugha fd;k fd edku ds 'ks"k fdl Hkkx ij ,oa fdl izdkj izfroknh us dCtk fd;k ,oa mldk mi;ksx miHkkx izfroknh fdl izdkj dj jgk gSA edku ds 'ks"k Hkkx ij izfroknh }kjk dCtk djus ds laca/k esa oknh dks tkudkjh dSls gqbZ] fdl O;fDr us mls crk;k] ;g Hkh oknh us vius c;kuksa esa ugha crk;k gS] u gh oknh us ,sls fdlh lk{kh dks U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr djk;k gS ftlesa ;g ekuk tk lds fd izfroknh us oknxzLr edku ds 'ks"k Hkkx ij dCtk fd;k ,oa mlus oknh dks bl laca/k esa crk;k gksA oknh us tqykbZ 96 esa oknxzLr edku ifjoknh dks ekstht O;fDr;ksa ds lkeus nsuk dFku fd;k gS fdUrq mlus ,sls fdlh ekstht O;fDr dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gSA oknh ds _.k nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij ;g crkus dk iz;kl fd;k gS fd mlus izys[k ,Xth0 2 ds }kjk mls tks edku fn;k x;k ml ij _.k ysdj edku dk fuekZ.k djk;k ,oa jkf'k [kpZ dhA fdUrq _.k nLrkost ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd oknh us okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds e/; fLFkr edku ij gh _.k jkf'k ls edku dk fuekZ.k djk;k gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa _.k ls lacaf/kr nLrkostkr oknh dks fdlh izdkj dh enn ugha djrs gSA oknh us ,Xth0 2 ds vk/kkj ij _.k izkIr djuk crk;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ,Xth0 2 ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl e/; ds edku gsrq _.k ugha fy;k x;k FkkA oknh ds fy, ;g vko';d gksrk gS fd og ftu vk/kkjksa ij ,oa ftl izdkj okn ysdj vk;k gS mu vk/kkjksa dks vius Bksl lcwr }kjk lkfcr djsA tgkWa oknh ds vfHkopuksa ,oa mlds }kjk izLrqr izek.k esa vUrj gks ogkWa okn oknh dkuwuh fMdzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gksrk gSA tSlk fd mij foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS] ,Xth0 2 tks fd oknh ds ckn dk eq[; vk/kkj gS mlesa ,oa oknh }kjk okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr fd;s x;s iM+kSlks esa fHkUurk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh ds vfHkopuksa ,oa izek.k esa fHkUurk gSA lkFk gh ,Xth0 11 esa tks iM+kSl edku ds of.kZr fd;s x;s gS muesa ,oa okn i= ds dkWye la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl esa Hkh fHkUurk gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1974 jktLFkku ist 73 dqlqepan ,oa vU; cuke dUgS;kyky ,oa vU; ekeys esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gS& AIR 1974 Raj. Page 73 Kusum Chand & Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal & Ors. (B). C.P.C. Order 6, Rule 2 – Variance between pleading and proof - Effect - A variation between pleading and proof causes surprise and confusion and therefore has been always looked upon with considerable disfavour. olh;r dks mlds vuqizek.kd lkf{k;ksa }kjk lkfcr djk;k tkuk vko';d gksrk gSA ,Xth0 11 ds nksuksa vuqizek.kd lkf{k;ksa nsohflag o iksdjnkl esa ls fdlh Hkh vuqizek.kd lk{kh dks oknh us ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh olh;r dks Hkh U;k;ky; esa lkfcr djkus esa vlQy jgk gSA mijksDr foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vuqlkj eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWapk gwWa fd oknh okni= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds e/; ds edku ij viuk LokfeRo lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS ,oa olh;r dks Hkh mlus fof/kuqlkj izekf.kr ugha djk;k gSA oknh us okn i= esa ;g vuqrks"k pkgk gS fd okni= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSl ds edku dks mlds LokfeRo dk gksuk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fdUrq ftl izys[k ,Xth0 2 ds vk/kkj ij oknh okn ysdj vk;k gS mlds vk/kkj ij oknh viuk LokefRo oknxzLr edku ij lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa okn i= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa of.kZr iM+kSlksa ds e/; dk edku oknh ds LokfeRo dk gksuk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha gksxkA oknh us ;g Hkh vuqrks"k pkgk gS fd oknxzLr edku ls izfroknh dks csn[ky fd;k tkdj mldk dCtk oknh dks fnyk;k tkos ,oa 200@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls vUrZHkwr ykHk fn;k tkosA fdUrq tc oknh oknxzLr edku ij viuk LokfeRo gh lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS fd rks ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dks izfroknh ls dCtk fnyk;k tkuk ,oa 200@& :i;s vUrZHkwr ykHk fnyk;s tkus dk vuqrks"k dkuwuu oknh dks ugha iznku fd;k tk ldrkA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa okn oknh fo:) izfroknh fMdzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gksdj dkfcy [kkfjt gSA vkns'k ifj.kkeLo:i ;g oknh bUnj flag fo:) izfroknh Hkheflag [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsA fMdzh ipkZ blh vej dk tkjh gksA Sd/- jkepUnz flag >kyk vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ckyh ¼jkt0½ 4. It may be noted herein that defendant, Bheem Singh, did not file any written-statement before the learned trial court and his Advocate before the trial court (Sh. It may be noted herein that defendant, Bheem Singh, did not file any written-statement before the learned trial court and his Advocate before the trial court (Sh. Ganpat Choudhary), pleaded no instructions before the court below on 17.04.2003, however, before pleading no instructions, on 03.03.2003, the learned trial court passed an order on the application under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, which permits a judgment on the admission of the averments made in the plaint by the learned trial court without any trial. The order dated 03.03.2003 is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^odhy oknh Jh bUnzkt Hk.Mkjh mi0A odhy izfroknh Jh x.kiryky th pkS/kjh mi0A odhy oknh us ,d izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 8 fu;e 10 lh0ih0lh0 izLrqr fd;kA lquk x;kA U;k;fgr esa bl izdj.k esa oknh ds c;ku ys[kc) djus ds i'pkr~ gh izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk eSa mfpr le>rk gwWaA vr% oknh ds c;ku djkus gsrq oknh ds vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA oknh Lo;a gkftj ftlds c;ku ih0 MCY;w0 1 fy;s x;sA oknh us Lo;a ds c;ku djokdj viuh 'kgknr cUn dhA pwafd izfroknh dk tokc nkok Hkh izLrqr ugha gqvk gS ,oa odhy izfroknh us oknh ls ftjg Hkh ugha djuk pkgkA vr% i=koyh okLrs cgl vfUre fnukad 20-03-2003 dks is'k gksA Sd/- vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckyh ¼jkt0½^^ 5. Order 8, Rule 10 CPC is also quoted herein below for ready reference: "Order 8.- Written Statement, set-off and counterclaim: (1) xxx Rule 10- Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be draw up; Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement." 6. Thus, without any written statement, contest or evidence led by the defendant Bheem Singh, on the basis of the plaint averments and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, Inder Singh, including the Patta (Exhibit-2), Will (Exhibit-11), and other documents about his taking loan for construction of house and 'no dues certificate' issued by the Bank for squaring up the loan etc. the suit ought to have been decreed in favour of plaintiff, however, the learned trial court has rejected the same for the aforesaid reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present first appeal in this Court on 30.07.2003. 7. Looking to the close relationship between the parties, this Court tried for resolution of the dispute through mediation process and for that purpose, all the three brothers were summoned by the Court also, but after detailed discussion with them, the inter se dispute between them could not be resolved amicably and, therefore, the matter was heard on merits. 8. Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the suit on wholly extraneous grounds despite the fact that the defendant/respondent failed to put up any contest in the suit and even did not file any written-statement in the trial court; still the learned court below instead of straightway passing the decree in favour of plaintiff, chose to record the evidence of the plaintiff vide order dated 03.03.2003, which was done by the court below and the defendant's counsel who was appearing on that date, even did not to cross-examine the plaintiff on any of the averments made by him in his plaint/statement. Later on, on 17.04.2003, Advocate of the defendant pleaded 'no instructions'. The defendant thereafter also failed to take any step for setting aside for such ex parte proceedings against him or to apply to the court for seeking leave to defend by filing his written statement or otherwise argue the case. 9. Later on, on 17.04.2003, Advocate of the defendant pleaded 'no instructions'. The defendant thereafter also failed to take any step for setting aside for such ex parte proceedings against him or to apply to the court for seeking leave to defend by filing his written statement or otherwise argue the case. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, submitted that the learned court below on wholly extraneous considerations that plaintiff having failed to prove the Will since the attesting witnesses of the same were not examined by the court, and also that the neighbourhood of the plot of land differed in different documents, which he submitted that happened on account of subsequent purchase by different persons of the adjacent house/plots, therefore, without calling for any explanation for such difference of neighbourhood in the Patta (Exhibit-2) dated 19.06.1980, Will dated 17.12.1989 and the notice given by the plaintiff dated 10.06.2002 and in the plaint filed on 02.09.2002. the learned trial court proceeded to draw adverse inference and dismissed the suit. 10. Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on the eastern side of the plot of land, originally one Anraj was the neighbour, who existed at the time of execution of Will up to 17.12.1989 also, but in the year 2002 when the Notice (Exhibit-12) revoking the permission or licence of the defendant was revoked by the elder brother, Inder Singh, one Sh. Laxman Singh, purchased the eastern side plot from said Anraj, was shown as the neighbour in the said notice and in the subsequent plaint as well as in the statement of PW.1 recorded by the court below on 03.03.2003 as it was a fact as on that date. This could not have dislodged the claim of the appellant/plaintiff of ownership of the plot of land and residential house constructed thereon, particularly, in the absence of any controverting fact averred or proved by the defendant. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order and decree cannot be sustained and the present first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff, Inder Singh, deserves to be allowed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied upon a judgment in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board v. G.C. Pandya reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3421 in which dealing with the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para 13 as under: - "13. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff relied upon a judgment in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board v. G.C. Pandya reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3421 in which dealing with the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para 13 as under: - "13. In a case where the written statement is not filed, the civil court has the jurisdiction to proceed under Order 8, Rule 10 of C.P.C. However, the orders are not required to be passed in mechanical manner in exercise of the powers contained in the above mentioned provision of law. In Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another, this Court has laid down law in paragraphs 25 to 27 on this point, as under: - "25. Thus, in spite of admission of a fact having been made by a party to the suit, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the fact which has been admitted by the defendant. This is also in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act which provides as under: "58. Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." 26. The proviso to this section specifically gives a discretion to the court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. The proviso corresponds to the proviso to Rule 5(1), Order 8, CPC. 27. In view of the above, it is clear that the court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. While enabling the court to pronounce judgment in a situation where no written statement is filed by the defendant, the court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative. This is also the position under Order 8, Rule 10 , CPC where the court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit." 12. On the other hand, Mr. This is also the position under Order 8, Rule 10 , CPC where the court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit." 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/defendant supported the impugned order and submitted that the defendant was deprived of his opportunity to defend the case and in view of his Advocate pleading 'no instructions' on his behalf, the suit could not be properly defended. He also submitted that the plot of land in question was belonging to grandfather of these three brothers and the Patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff just for the name's sake and the construction was also not raised by him alone. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the decree of possession and mesne profit deserves to be passed in favour of appellant/plaintiff. 14. Not only the plaintiff who was entitled to succeed on the basis of plaint averments supported by his statement recorded by the learned trial court on 03.03.2003, in the absence of any cross-examination, written statement by the defendant or evidence led by him worth the name, the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the plaintiff as recorded by the learned court below in the order dated 03.03.2003 was enough to clinch the issue in favour of plaintiff. His plaint was duly supported by the Will of the father of the plaintiff, late Sh. Loon Singh Rajpurohit also, who while acknowledging the title or ownership of the plot of land as well as residential house constructed on it, in favour of his elder son, plaintiff-Inder Singh, also gave the two other plots of land to other two sons, namely, Dalpat Singh and defendant Bheem Singh. Loon Singh Rajpurohit also, who while acknowledging the title or ownership of the plot of land as well as residential house constructed on it, in favour of his elder son, plaintiff-Inder Singh, also gave the two other plots of land to other two sons, namely, Dalpat Singh and defendant Bheem Singh. It is found appropriate to quote the entire Will (Exhibit-11) herein below for ready reference: - bPNk i= eSa yw.k flag iq= Jh QkStwflag th mez 56 o"kZ tkfr jktiqjksfgr fuoklh fBdkuk xkWao <+kfj;k rglhy nslwjh ftyk ikyh ekjokM+ dk jgus okyk ,r}kjk viuh fuEufyf[kr lEifRr;kWa ,oa ifjlEifRr;ksa dk bl bPNk i= ds tfj;s fuEu of.kZr O;fDr;ksa ds gd esa NksM+rk gwWa rFkk mn~/k`r djrk gwWaA esjh reke py ,oa vpy tk;nkn tks fuEu fooj.k dh gS oks bl bPNk i= }kjk fu"ikfnr dh x;h le>h tkosxhA 1- d`f"k Hkwfe&okds xzke <+kfj;k esa fofHkUu [kljk uEcjksa dh lkeykrh vk;h gqbZ gS tks eSaus vius rhuksa iq=ksa Jh bUnj flag] nyir flag] ,oa Hkheflag dks cjkcj fgLlksa esa ckaVdj muds ukeksa dk ukekUrj.k Hkh Hkw&vfHkys[k foHkkx ls djok fy;k gSA 2- fjgk;'kh tk;nkn (v) IykV la[;k ,d xzke <+kfj;k esa ftldk ikl iM+kSl fuEu gS& (Plot/Housing in dispute) rjQ mRrj ls if'pe esa & pSuflag th dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gS rjQ nf{k.k esa&eq[; ekxZ ¼lM+d½ vk;h gqbZ gS rFkk rjQ iwoZ esa & vujkt th tSu dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA mDr IykV ij esjs lcls cM+s iq= us viuh fu;ksDrk cSad ls vius uke dk _.k izkIr djds Lo;a ds jgokl gsrq edku fuekZ.k djok;k gqvk gSA tks vc ls mlh ds ,oa mlds ifjokj ds gd esa jgsxkA c& IykV la[;k nks xzke <+kfj;k ftlds ikl iM+kSl fuEu izdkj gS%& rjQ mRrj esa& eq[; ekxZ vk;k gqvk gSA rjQ nf{k.k esa& xq.ks'k flag th dk tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA rjQ iwoZ esa& fd'kksj flag th dh tk;nkn gS rFkk ewy flag dh rFkk if'pe esa & [kaxkjketh pkS/kjh dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA bl IykV dh tk;nkn esa vius nwljs iq= Jh nyirflag ds ,oa mlds ifjokj ds gd esa NksM+rk gwa o nsrk gwWaA c& IykV la[;k rhu&ftldk fuEu ikl iM+kSl gS okds xzke <+kfj;k esa vk;h gqbZ gS& rjQ mRrj& Jh jkek jkbZdk dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA rjQ nf{k.k& Jh pSuflag dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA rjQ iwoZ& vke jkLrk vk;k gqvk gSA rFkk rjQ if'pe& Jh ?khlkjke jkbZdk dh tk;nkn vk;h gqbZ gSA ;g IykV esa vius rhljs iq= Jh Hkheflag ,oa mlds ifjokj ds gd esa NksM+rk gwWa o mUgs nsrk gwWaA 3- py lEifRr& esjs ikl py lEifRr ds :i esa fuEu fooj.k dh cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk dh lkof/k tek,a gS& 1- ,Q0Mh0 la[;k 032435 fnukad 12-09-1989 ,d o"kZ dh :0 10000@& 2- ,Q0Mh0 la[;k 032436 fnukad 12-09-1989 nks o"kZ dh :0 10000@& 3- ,Q0Mh0 la[;k 032437 fnukad 12-09-1989 rhu o"kZ dh :0 10000@& 4- ,Q0Mh0 la[;k 032438 fnukad 12-09-1989 ikap o"kZ dh :0 5000@& 5- ,Q0Mh0 la[;k 032439 fnukad 12-09-1989 N% o"kZ dh :0 14560@& dqy jde :i;s :0 49560@& mijksDr cSad tekvksa dk e; blds C;kt vkfn ds esjs thoudky esa eSa gh bldk ,d ek= ekfyd dkfct jgwaxk rFkk esjs LoxZokl ds mijkUr mijksDr esa ls tks Hkh tek, 'ks"k jgsxh mldk ,d ek= mRrjkf/kdkjh esjk cM+k iq= Jh bUnj flag ,oa budk ifjokj gh gksxk D;ksafd esjk lcls cM+k iq= Jh bUnjflag ,oa budk ifjokj gh esjh 'kq: ls gh vPNh ns[kHkky] lsok vkfn djrs vk jgs gSA ;gh ugha tc lu~ 1982 esa ,d Hk;adj nq?kZVuk esa yxus okyh pksVksa vkfn dk bykt Hkh Jh bUnjflag us Lo;a ds [kpsZ ij djk;k Fkk rFkk buds ifjokj ds izR;sd lnL; esjh th tku ls lsok pkdjh djrs gSaA vr% esjs LoxZokl ds mijkUr esjh reke py lEifRr;ksa dks ikus dk ,d ek= vf/kdkj Jh bUnj flag ds ifjokj dks gh jgsxkA blds vfrfjDr eSaus viuh lHkh iqf=;ksa ds fookg mfpr nku ngst ds lkFk vPNs ?kjkuksa esa lEiUu dj fn;s gS vr% vc esjs fy;s dksbZ Hkh vU; ftEesokjh 'ks"k ugha jgrh gSA blfy;s eSa vc vius bl ,d ek= ,oa vafre bPNk i= ds tfj;s viuh reke py ,oa vpy tk;nknksa dk fuLrkj.k mijksDr vuqlkj dj nsrk gwWa rkfd Hkfo"; esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fookn esjs ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds e/; mifLFkr ugha gksus ikosA fygktk eSaus vkt fnukad 17-12-1989 dks vius ,d ek= ,oa vfUre bPNk i= ds :i esa l bPNk i= dks fuEu xokgksa dh ekStwnxh esa viuh ethZ ,oa jkth[kq'kh vdy gksf'k;kjh ,oa iw.kZr;k LoLFkfpr gkyr esa lksp le>dj ,oa mfpr foosd ls gLrk{kfjr fd;k gS tks lgh o lun jgs rFkk oDr t:jr dke vkosA tks/kiqj fnukad 17-12-1989 Sd/- yw.kflag xokg Jh yw.kflag th iq= Jh QkStwflag th] mijksDr fu"iknu drkZ us ge] nsoh flag iq= Jh cky flag th fuokl fBdkuk xzke [kkjk csjk iqjksfgrku ftyk tks/kiqj ,oa iksdjnkl iq= Jh eksgunkl th fuoklh fBdkuk xzke lkyfj;k rglhy nslwjh ftyk ikyh ekjokM+ dh ekStwnxh esa ;g bPNk i= gLrk{kfjr fd;k gS rFkk ge nksuksa us Jh yw.kflag ,oa ,d nwljs dh ekStwnxh esa crkSj xokg bl bPNk i= ij vius vius gLrk{kj fd;s gSa tks gekjh tkudkjh vuqlkj lgh ,oa lR; gSA tks/kiqj fnukad 17-12-1989 Sd/- nsoh flag jktiqjksfgr Sd/- ¼iksdjnkl½ 15. The title documents coupled with the father's Will amply prove in favour of plaintiff that he had undisputed title and ownership of the residential house in question. Even without the support of Will his title was proved by Patta (Exhibit-2) and construction evidences Exhibits- 3 & 4. The permissive possession given to the defendant, younger brother, Bheem Singh, is also understandable, since the plaintiff was serving at Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank at Jodhpur at that point of time; and in fact from the statement of the plaintiff and plaint averments, it also appears that said defendant, Bheem Singh, did not even participate in the last rite ceremony of his father and did not even permit his dead body to be placed in the suit house, and which was required to be taken to his brother's residence of Sh. Mool Singh, who was brother of deceased Sh. Loon Singh Rajuprohit. Thus, these unrebutted facts also reflect on the conduct of the defendant, Bheem Singh badly. 16. Keeping these facts in the background, there was no valid reason for the learned trial court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. The Will was not required to be proved by the plaintiff as was demanded by the learned court below. It was not a case of grant of probate in favour of plaintiff but only was for collateral fact to be proved that the other property, namely, plots were being given to the defendant and the other brother, which was required to be seen by the learned trial court from the said document Will (Exhibit-11). The Patta (Ex.2) was enough proof and was also well proved by the plaintiff/appellant and the change of neighbourhood on different dates over a long period of from 1980 to 2002 could also be well explained by the plaintiff, if he was called upon to do so. The Patta (Ex.2) was enough proof and was also well proved by the plaintiff/appellant and the change of neighbourhood on different dates over a long period of from 1980 to 2002 could also be well explained by the plaintiff, if he was called upon to do so. In the absence of such opportunity given by the court below to the plaintiff, even though the trial court itself recorded the evidence of the plaintiff even by passing interim order on 03.03.2003 under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, which permits the trial court to proceed to pass decree in the absence of any contest or written statement of the defendants, as it thinks fit, still without giving any opportunity to explain the difference of neighbourhood, the learned trial court could not have drawn any adverse inference against the plaintiff in the present case. Over a long period of time, change of neighbourhood is likely to take place and had the plaintiff been given such opportunity, he could have explained the difference in his own statement recorded by the court below on 03.03.2003 as was done before this Court. 17. Thus, both the basic grounds taken by the learned trial court to reject the suit of the plaintiff are unsustainable and cannot be supported by any documentary or oral contra evidence. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff fully applies to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the present first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the suit deserves to be decreed in favour of appellant. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (D) through LR's reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 in para 32 to 36 has held as under: - "Truth as guiding star in judicial process 32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-whether discretionary or obligatory according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. 35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice. 36. In Ritesh Tewari and another v. State of U.P. and Others (2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under: ".....Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest" ..........The quest of truth continues........, also in this case. 19. Deprecating false claims and defences, which are considered really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in para 81 and 82 observed as under:- "False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in the Courts. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi case, (2011) 8 SCC 249 aptly observed that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. This problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate case would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings." And then finally, allowing the sister's appeal as aforesaid and laying down the principles of law in para 97 to 101, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:- 1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. 2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. 3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. 4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. 5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. 4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. 5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession. 98. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and we accordingly do so. Consequently, this Court directs that the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the appellant, who is admittedly the owner of the suit property. 99. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the legal representatives of the respondent are granted three months time to vacate the suit premises. They are further directed that after the expiry of the three months period, the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over to the appellant. The usual undertaking to this effect be filed by the legal representatives of the respondent in this Court within two weeks. 100. The legal representatives of the respondent are also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) per month towards the use and occupation of the premises for a period of three months. The said amount for use and occupation be given to the appellant on or before the 10th of every month. In case the legal representatives of the respondent are not willing to pay the amount for use and occupation as directed by this Court, they must hand over the possession of the premises within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Thereafter, if the legal representatives of the respondent do not hand over peaceful possession of the suit property, in that event, the appellant would be at liberty to get the possession of the premises by taking police help. 101. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant within four weeks. (We have imposed the moderate cost in view of the fact that the original respondent has expired). 101. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant within four weeks. (We have imposed the moderate cost in view of the fact that the original respondent has expired). Ordered accordingly." Thus, strongly deprecating the holding over of possession by the persons like care-takers and persons with permissive possession, Chowkidars etc., the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal in that case with exemplary cost of Rs. 50000/- and mesne profit of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of a residential house situated at Goa. 20. Accordingly, and in view of above, the present first appeal of the appellant/plaintiff is allowed and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2003 passed by learned A.D.J., Bali, District: Pali, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in his favour. The defendant, Bheem Singh is directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, a residential house on the Plot measuring 21' x 54' situated in Village Dhariya, Tehsil: Desuri, to the plaintiff/appellant within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 11.06.2006. The defendant shall also pay mesne profit @ 200/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the actual possession of the suit premises is handed over the appellant/plaintiff. In case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted for handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises, shall stand reduced and the decree of possession would become executable forthwith. The respondent/defendant and his successors shall also clear all the arrears of mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/appellant, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent/defendant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises, any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the said property and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents on or before 11.06.2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiff/appellant shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith.