- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. This defendant's second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 63 of 1973 for possession of the house in question. The suit was dismissed on 20-3-1975. The District Judge, Rampur allowed the Civil Appeal No. 240 of 1975 on 23-3-1976.
(2.) ACCORDING to plaint allegations the house in dispute was owned by one Bassi Lal, who died three years prior to the filing of the suit, leaving his widow Mst. Chameli Devi. She was in possession of the house. On 20-7-1973 she transferred it by a registered sale-deed and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. On 22-7- 1973 the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, broke open the lock and took possession of the house in plaintiff's absence. The plaintiff lodged a FIR and then filed the suit two days thereafter for possession and for compensation. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 denied that Bassi Lal was the owner of the house. They claimed that the house actually belonged to one Shri Ashrafi Lal, father of defendant No. 1, who died 15 years ago leaving two sons Bhagwan Saran and Munna and his widow Smt. Gomti as his heirs, who are in possession of the house since then. Smt. Chameli respondent No. 4 is not the widow of Bassi Lal. The wife of Bassi Lal died 15 or 20 years back. He did not remarry. He died without leaving any heir. His brother Sipahi Lal and three nephews including defendant No. 1, who is son of Asharfi Lal are his heirs. The respondent No. 4 is in fact Jamuna Devi. She is widow of Tinku from whom she had one son Chandrasen and daughter Khillo who are alive. She is mother-in-law of the brother of defendant No. 1 and that a fictitious sale-deed was executed in collusion of their enemies. The trial Court held that Bassi Lal was the owner of the house in suit. Smt. Chameli-the defendant No. 4 was not the widow of Bassi Lal. She had no right to transfer the house. The plaintiff- appellant never got possession of the house after the execution of the sale-deed, and dismissed the suit.
(3.) THE appellate Court proceeded to decide two points for determination: (1) Whether Bassi Lal was the owner of the house in question? (2) Whether the plaintiff acquired any title to the same by transfer? The appellate Court considered the oral evidence of plaintiff as PW-1; Chameli Devi PW-2 and Shiv Shanker-PW-3. Shiv Shunker was also witness to the sale-deed. The documentary evidence (Paper No. 39 A-1), and the voter's list of 1966 established that house No. 257 was occupied by Bassi Lal and Chameli Devi. The voter's list of 1962 (Paper No. 28-C) also recorded that house No. 257 was occupied by Bassi Lal, his wife Kanti Devi and three other persons including defendant No. 1. The appellate Court found that Ram Autar-defendant No. 1-and his two witnesses Sultan Khan-DW2 and Faqir Chandra DW- 3 gave inconsistent statements. Ram Autar stated that Bassi Lal lived in another house with his uncle Sipahi Lal. He initially stated that the house of his uncle Sipahi Lal in which Bassi Lal lived was to the south of the disputed land but later he stated that Bassi Lal and his uncle lived in a house which was in the west to the disputed house. When asked again, he stated that the house of his uncle Sipahi Lal was in the direction in which the sun rises (east ). Sultan Khan DW-2 and Faqir Chandra DW-3 corroborated the initial statement of Ram Autar that he lived in the house to the south of the disputed house. Sultan Khan is a neighbour. His house was towards north of the disputed house. The appellate Court thus found on the assessment of evidence that Bassi Lal lived in a house alongwith Sipahi Lal and was in fact the owner of the house in question till his death and that thereafter his widow inherited the house.;