- (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th October, 1966, of Sri G.P. Srivastava, Civil Judge, Bareilly dismissing the appellant's appeal after confirming the decree of the trial court.
(2.) THE suit giving rise to this second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs respondents against the defendant appellant for possession of the property detailed in the plaint by demolition of defendant's construction, and for the recovery of Rs. 50.00 as damages. The allegations in the plaint were that one Jaleel Uddin purchased the Zamindari of Nandgaon in the year 1922 and he remained in its possession as owner till the abolition of the Zamindari. On 16-12-1954, Jaleel Uddin sold the disputed house to one Kishan Swaru. On 5-4-1961 Smt. Jai Rani, widow of Kishan Swarup, sold it to the plaintiffs and one Bholanath. After the death of Kishan Swarup, his heirs raised a dispute but eventually a compromise was arrived at and the heirs of Kishan Swarup, namely, Brahm Swarup and Jagdish executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant without any right made certain constructions in the disputed house which had become dilapidated and hence the suit for possession. The defendant appellant resisted the claim on the allegations that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the disputed house at all. It was alleged that the defendant's father Khyali Ram purchased the disputed house on 25-7-1906 from the Zamindar Mirza Abid Husain. Thereafter Khyali Ram aforesaid mortgaged the disputed house with Bhagwan Das and Beni Ram on 23-12-1918. Bhagwan Das and Beni Ram mortgagees aforesaid filed Suit No. 482 of 1930 for the enforcement of the said mortgage. Khyali Ram and his son, defendant, redeemed that mortgage. It was, therefore, alleged that the defendant appellant was the owner of the disputed house. Limitation was also pleaded as bar of the suit. The claim for damages was also challenged.
(3.) THE trial court framed four issues in the case and after taking evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were the owners of the disputed property and the defendant was not its owner. It was further held that the suit was within time. The trial court further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 50.00 as damages. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit for possession after demolition and also decreed the suit for recovery of the damages.;