BHARAT KUMAR GUPTA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal by the defendants is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 of learned Additional District Judge, Udhampur passed in a Civil 1st Appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing defendants' appeal, has upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge (C.J.M.) Udhampur in a suit for ejectment in favour of the plaintiffs (herein respondents) as against defendants (herein appellants and two others). Heard. I have pursued the record.

(2.) Fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are these:

(3.) I may briefly refer to the grounds on which the judgment and decree were challenged in the 1st appeal. Defendants (appellants) questioned the finding of the learned trial Court in issue No. 1 contending that material on record clearly shows that annual income of the defendants) during the relevant time was less than 60,000/- rupees. They contended that learned trial Court acted on surmises and conjectures and unreasonably rejected the income tax assessment record of the defendants. Appellants also questioned the view taken by the learned trial Court that decisions in issue Nos. 2 & 3 was not required and also the decision of the Court in these issues contending that the same was arrived at ignoring all material facts from which inference of bona fide and reasonable need of plaintiffs could have been drawn. In this regard, appellants also pointed out that the impugned judgment sans reference to defendants' preferential right to the construction to be raised on the suit land, if a decree for ejectment on that ground were to be passed. Defendants also questioned finding as regards sub-letting of a shop on the ground that the same was not proved and there was no forfeiture clause. It is important, however, to underline that the defendants in the 1st. appeal did not raise any specific objections to the finding of the learned trial Court in issue Nos. 6 & 7 and, to say in particular, against the finding that they/their predecessor-in-interest, Santosh Rani, were/was continuing in possession of the suit land as tenant at sufferance.