LAXMI NARAYAN Vs. HASTI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present first appeal has been filed by the defendant Laxmi Narayan s/o Shri Nathu Ji Jeengar being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction and possession passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No.16/79 � Hasti Mal s/o Shri Hari Ram Jeengar vs. Laxmi Narayan s/o Shri Nathu Ji Jeengar dated 17.12.1998 in respect of the suit premises � a house, situated at near Pipaliya Mahadev Temple, opposite Ek Minar Maszid, Jodhpur.

(2.) THE facts in brief are like this. The suit property is said to have been purchased by the plaintiff Hasti Mal from the defendant Laxmi Narayan only under the registered sale deed Ex.1 dated 28.02.1968 for the sum of Rs.5,000/- and a shop at the Ground Floor was let out to one Mr. Muzaffar Hussain @ Rs.19/- per month on 29.02.1968 which was handed over back to him on 06.01.1971. The plaintiff Hasti Mal claimed that on the second floor of said house, he constructed another room, which was let out on 28.02.1968 to one Badri Lal Chunni Lal @ Rs.10/- per month, which was also handed over back to him on 26.06.1968. It is also claimed that the suit premises situated at first floor of the house was given on rent by the plaintiff on 29.02.1968 to the defendant Laxmi Narayan @ Rs.16/- per month, since he was his relative being brother-in-law (wife's brother or ) for the eviction of which the plaintiff had to file a Civil Suit No.52/72 in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur on 05.10.1971 and on transfer, was renumbered as 83/73 since Laxmi Narayan refused to handover back the vacant possession of the suit premises and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Hasti Mal on 08.12.1973 and with the dismissal of the defendant Laxmi Naryan's appeal by the appellate court on 24.07.1975 in the Execution Case No.28/74, the possession of the suit premises was given back to the plaintiff- decree holder - Hasti Mal through Sale Ameen on 01.11.1976, however, the defendant Laxmi Narayan forcibly took back the possession and entered in the said premises and also of the shop in question and, therefore, the present suit for possession, eviction and mesne profits was filed by the plaintiff � Hastimal.

(3.) THE learned trial court after recording the evidence and taking on record the documentary evidence, decided the various issues in favour of the plaintiff Hasti Mal and decreed the suit vide judgment under appeal on 17.12.1998 and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant Laxmi Narayan has filed the present first appeal before this Court under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code.