H P HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVECUM-SECRETARY Vs. KRISHNA SHARMA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 4.3.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P, in Civil Appeal No.111 of 2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No.94/2002, dated 1.3.2005.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to call as 'the plaintiff') is a statutory authority and is carrying on the functions of H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority. The respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to call as 'the defendant') has allotted plot No.66, in Housing Colony Bhiuli, Mandi, after allotment of the plot, defendant No.1 executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement with the plaintiff and the possession was delivered to defendant No.1, with the terms and conditions that he will not convey its right, title or interest, over the tenement allotted without prior permission of the plaintiff. The plan of the building proposed to be constructed to the board for its approval, which was approved on 7.11984 and defendant No.1 constructed the building, as per the approved plan. Defendant No.1 transferred his right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.2 through registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2001 in contravention to an utter disregard of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 16.5.1983 and conveyance deed dated 20.6.1988. Defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1, started unauthorized construction since last week of August, 2001 by making addition and alternation in the aforesaid building constructed by defendant No.1 over Plot No.66, on 1.9.2001, when it came to the notice of plaintiff, defendant dismantled the internal partition wall, thereafter, plaintiff issued notice dated 30.9.2001 to defendant No.1, but the unauthorized construction was not stopped and stair case, a bath room and rear eaves (chhaja) in the ground floor and a room on eaves (chhaja), stair case on the first floor have been constructed unauthorisedly by the defendant.

(3.) The suit is resisted and contested by defendant No.2 alleging that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable. On merits, it has been contended that replying defendant has not made any unauthorized construction and he was having no knowledge of the purchase of plot by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. As per the revenue record, defendant No.2, was absolute owner-in-possession of the land/house situated at Shiulu and being satisfied qua the title of defendant No.1. The replying defendant has purchased her land/house through registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.2001 and since then the replying defendant is absolute owner-in-possession of the suit property.