RSA No. 755 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 755 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.02.2011. Gurmukh Singh and others .......Appellants Vs. Raghbir Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession in respect of ½ share of the house No. 84, Ward No. 9 and for recovery of ` 2,88,000/- for use and occupation of the property in question. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner of the house in question. The plaintiff had purchased the house in question on 18.11.1953 and thereafter raised construction. Defendant No.1 was the son of plaintiff, whereas defendant No.2 was the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 was the son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 was the wife of defendant No.4. The property in dispute had been given by the plaintiff to his son about 10 years ago. The plaintiff was an old man aged more than 87 years. The defendant No.1 gave beatings to the plaintiff on 20.5.2007 and had sold the RSA No. 755 of 2011 (O&M) -2- household articles belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cancelled the licence of defendant no.1 and thereafter the defendants were in illegal possession of the suit property. The property in dispute could fetch rent @ ` 8,000/- per month. Hence, the plaintiff was also entitled to recover the occupation charges from the defendants. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff had given the suit property to defendant No.1 by way of family settlement. Defendant No.1 had paid ` 1,00,000/- in three installments through Amar Sigh to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had got the entire building renovated in the year 1987. Defendant No.1 had installed doors and windows afresh and had changed the electric wiring of the portion in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of ` 2,88,000/- for use and occupation charges? OPP 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed/rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD 7. Relief.” RSA No. 755 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2010, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff qua possession of ½ share of the house in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 2,88,000/- was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property vide sale deed Ex.P-1. Plaintiff is the father of defendant No.1 and is now aged about 90 years. Since the plaintiff is seeking possession of the property in dispute which was in possession of the defendants shows that all is not well between the plaintiff, his son and his family members. Although the defendants had alleged that they had spent more than ` 1,50,000/- on renovation of the property in dispute but they have been living in the house in dispute without any payment of rent. The appellants had failed to establish that the suit property had come to the share of defendant No.1 in a family settlement. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to get the possession of the portion of house in dispute. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 15, 2011 Gurpreet