ARUN PALLI,J. - (1.)The suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs as also the counterclaim preferred by the appellant-defendant were dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2015. Two separate appeals were preferred by the parties against the said decree. The appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.7.2018. Whereas, the appeal of the appellant-defendant failed and was dismissed on 4.7.2018, and this is how, he is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.)The respondents-plaintiffs prayed for possession of the suit property, as depicted in the cause title of the plaint, situated at village Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil and District Narnaul. In brief, the case set out by them was that they were owners in possession of one Haveli, shown in red colour in the site plan, pursuant to a release deed No. 1063 dated 3.1.2011. Though the defendant was neither the owner nor in possession of the Haveli, yet he forcibly occupied one room and a kitchen that formed part of the said property and was, thus, in unlawful possession.
(3.)In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was pleaded, inter alia, that suit was devoid of any cause of action and was time barred. Further, claim of the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of the suit property was denied. It was denied if the defendant had no concern with the Haveli. The release deed dated 3.1.2011 was alleged to be a forged and fabricated document. In fact, the suit property was co-parcenary in nature and devolved upon the defendant from Kanhiya son of Chokha. It was constructed out of Joint Hindu Family funds, and the defendant had l/3rd share therein. Earlier a suit for recovery was filed against the defendant, titled as Rameshwar Vs. Ram Singh, and in the execution, share of the defendant was attached. As regards this, father of defendant (Ishwar) had filed third party objections, and maintained that defendant (Ram Singh) had no concern with the property. However, those objections were dismissed and it was concluded that the disputed Haveli was the property of Joint Hindu Family and was constructed out of Joint Hindu Family funds. It was denied if the possession of the defendant was illegal. Therefore, defendant, being owner in possession to the extent of l/3rd share, was fully entitled to raise construction.