VED PRAKASH Vs. THORU RAM
LAWS(J&K)-1993-7-6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on July 09,1993

VED PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
Thoru Ram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE suit of ejectment preferred by the respondent (hereinafter referred as Ëœthe Plaintiffâ„¢) was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Rajouri holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish his sole ownership over the suit shop and there was not any relationship of landlord and a tenant between the Plaintiff and the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Ëœthe Defendantâ„¢). The Plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned District Judge Rajouri who heard the appeal recorded the reverse finding holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the demised property and the said property was leased out to the defendant orally and the tenancy was created from 1st of September, 1978.
(2.)THE plaintiff filed the present suit against the Defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the basis of personal necessity and on the ground that the Defendant had been in arrears of rent. The suit premises consists a Single Storey shop at Rajouri Town. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the demised premises by a registered sale deed on 12 -5 -1962 from some Ragubir Paul and Krishna Devi. The defendant admittedly happens to be the nephew of the Plaintiff (his sisterâ„¢s son) and was living jointly with the Plaintiff till August 1978 when he shifted to his independent accommodation. Their joint business which they were carrying on jointly in this suit shop from year 1976, was terminated after the Defendant started to live separately. It was contended that since 1st September 1978, the Defendant in occupation of the suit shop as a tenant of the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs.300/ - which he paid regularly in the beginning but stopped the payment from ending August 1980.
(3.)IN his written statement the Defendant while controverting the suit of the plaintiff claimed himself lo belong to the plaintiffâ„¢s family as a member and all the properties were held by them jointly and on verbal partition the demised property fell in the share of the defendant.
On the pleadings of the parties eight issues were framed by the trial court in the case and the parties led evidence with respect to their counter claims in the matter.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.