RSA No. 2873 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2873 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009 Dalip Singh ......Appellant Versus Kahla Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Malkiat Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby, the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that plot No.13 measuring 400 square yards was purchased by the plaintiff and Smt. Kartar Kaur, jointly. Kartar Kaur wife of Kartar Singh was living with the plaintiff and their relationship developed into that of a husband and wife. The plaintiff and Kartar Kaur, sold 200 square yards out of 400 square yards of plot to one Krishan Lal and on the remaining 200 square yards, the plaintiff and Kartar Kaur used to reside in their house. The defendant is son of Kartar Kaur from her husband Kartar Singh. The plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the house in RSA No. 2873 of 2009 (2) question as his possession is that of a licencee and that licence has been revoked on 28.8.2000. In written statement, the stand of the defendant was that he is owner of the property in dispute as Kartar Kaur has purchased the plot in her own name and in the name of Dalip Singh. The defendant was residing with Smt. Kartar Kaur as her son. Construction was raised by Kartar Kaur and her son (defendant). No money was contributed by the plaintiff at any time. It was alleged that the house in dispute was actually constructed by Smt. Kartar Kaur, who died on 13.9.1995 and thereafter, the possession of the defendant is not of a licencee, but he is in possession of a disputed house as a matter of right. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding the defendant to be a licencee and that such licence has been revoked. However, in appeal a finding was returned that the plaintiff and Kartar Singh have sold 200 square yards of land out of 400 square yards of plot No. 13 to Krishan Lal. Kartar Kaur was married to one Kartar Singh and defendant was born to Kartar Kaur from the loins of Kartar Singh. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that after the death of Kartar Kaur, her property cannot go to Dalip Singh as Kartar Kaur was having a son (defendant) and daughters as her heirs. With the said finding the present suit has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to dispute the finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court. It is contended that the possession of the defendant is that of licencee, having been permitted to reside in the house constructed by the plaintiff and Kartar Kaur. However, the fact remains that the defendant inherits the estate of Kartar Kaur being RSA No. 2873 of 2009 (3) her son. Therefore, the possession of the defendant is that of a co-owner. The defendant is said to be in exclusive possession of the same. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is not a suit for mandatory injunction, as has been rightly found by the learned first Appellate Court. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 06-08-2009 ds