- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. These two second appeals arise out of common judgment dated 17-12-1979 in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1979 and 36 of 1979 (cross-appeal) against the judgment and decree dated 2-1-1979 passed by 4th Munsif, Jhansi dismissing suit Nos. 155 of 1971 and 7 of 1971, by judgment dated 2-1-1979.
(2.) THE plaintiff Sita Ram filed suit No. 155 of 1971 for ejectment of defendant Shanker Lal from the disputed house and for damages with the allegations that he had allowed the defendant to occupy a room in the house as licensee for his services. THE license was revoked but he did not vacate the disputed portion. The defendant Shanker Lal filed a written statement and pleaded that he was adopted by the plaintiff Sita Ram in 1946 and since then he is living in the disputed house as a member of the plaintiffs family and has become co-owner of the disputed house. His wife and sons are also living with him in the house and that their occupation is not confined to only one room. The other suit No. 7 of 1971 was filed by the plaintiff Sita Ram for permanent injunction restraining defendant Shanker Lal from interfering in his use of disputed house and common passage from the paur and Chowk of the disputed house with allegations that he had kept the defendant as licensee in a room. In this suit also the defendant Shanker Lal pleaded that he was the adopted son of the plaintiff and was living in the whole of the disputed house as son and co-owner, and as member of joint Hindu family property with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has kept one Smt. Shakuntla, a widow and that is how the dispute started between them. The suit was filed with false allegations.
(3.) THE trial Court held that the defendant Shanker Lal is not the adopted son of the plaintiff Sita Ram. Sita Ram is the exclusive owner of the house. It is not his ancestral property. THE defendant is plaintiffs licensee. A valid notice of termination of defendant's license was not served and thus the defendant Shanker Lal cannot be ejected. THE suit for ejectment was dismissed. THE suit for permanent injunction, however, restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff use of common paur and chowk was decreed. The appellate Court after assessment of oral and documentary evidence held that defendant Shanker Lal is the adopted son of plaintiff Sita Ram. The plaintiff Sita Ram's wife had died about 30 years ago. He had only one daughter from his first wife. Sita Ram is 'bania' by caste and is doing business. In such families son is an asset. Now since a son is born to the plaintiff from Shakuntala, his second wife, he wants to disinherit the defendant. The appellate Court held that after both the parties led evidence, the burden of proof looses significance and that the plaintiffs evidence establishes that the defendant was living in his house and was doing business with him for last 7 or 8 years before filing of the suit.;