SMT. SURENDRA BALA Vs. SMT. BHAGWAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.10.2015 passed by District Judge, Etah in consolidated Civil Appeal no. 21/2013 (Smt. Surendra Bala v. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and others) and civil appeal no. 62/2013 (Abdul Sahid & another v. Smt. Surendra Bala).

(2.) It is admitted case that original owner of disputed property was Sohan Lal, s/o Bihari Lal. His late son Virendra Kumar was married with Surendra Bala (defendant no. -1). It is also admitted that defendant no. 2 to 7 are near relative of defendant no. -1. Admittedly, defendant no. -1 Surendra Bala is residing in that portion of property by which original suit of eviction and recovery of damages has been filed. It is also admitted that on behalf of previous owner Sohan Lal (/defendant no. -7) had executed sale -deed dated 9.9.1970 of disputed property in favour of plaintiff no. -1 Bhagwan Devi. It is also admitted that during pendency of the proceedings of the original case, the plaintiff no. -1 Bhagwan Devi had sold the disputed property to plaintiff no. 2 and 3 (appellants of first appeal no. 62/2013).

(3.) In original suit no. -105/1973, the plaint case in brief was that original owner Sohan Lal (defendant no. -7) had admitted that her daughter -in -law, defendant no. -1 Smt. Surendra Bala as licensee in the disputed property. The said Sohan Lal had sold this property by sale -deed in favour of plaintiff no. -1. Sohan Lal cancelled the license of defendant no. -1 and had served notice of this to her. Plaintiff had also served notice to the defendant no. -1 for her status and information of cancellation of her license. Defendants no. 2 and 7 were admitted in this property on her behalf. Defendant no. -1 given wrong reply of said notice, then plaintiff no. -1 had filed suit for recovery of ejectment and recovery of damages of defendant from disputed house. Only defendant no.1 had filed written -statement, in which