J.S.KHEHAR, J. - (1.) THE respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for a decree of mandatory injunction against the appellant-defendant with a prayer that the appellant-defendant be directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendant, however, controverted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff by asserting that he had been in possession of the suit property for the last 40 years and had raised construction thereupon. The trial Court as also the lower appellate Court returned concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the respondent- plaintiff was owner of the suit property and further that the appellant- defendant was only a licensee thereon.
(2.) THROUGH the instant appeal, the appellant-defendant has impugned the orders passed on 21.2.2000 and 22.11.2000 by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court respectively, decreeing the claim raised by the respondent- plaintiff. Before the lower appellate Court, the counsel representing the appellant- defendant has asserted that the appellant-defendant had been depicted in the Khasra Girdawaris to be in possession of the suit property for the last 40 years. It is noticed in paragraph 10 of the order passed by the lower appellate Court that no Khasra Girdawaris were produced for the perusal of the court to establish the aforesaid factual position. No material whatsoever has been produced even before this court to substantiate the plea of the appellant-defendant that he has been in possession of the suit property for over 40 years. In fact, the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the appellant-defendant were also the basis for not accepting the factual assertion in respect of the possession of the appellant-defendant over the suit property. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the appellant-defendant Kali Ram in his own statement stated that he had raised construction of rooms on the suit property eight years prior to the recording of his statement. Whereas, his own witness Ajay Kumar asserted that the construction had been raised 30/40 years back. As against the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant-defendant, the respondent-plaintiff produced copy of Jamabandi, Ex.P2 showing that the respondent-plaintiff was co-owner of the suit property. The courts below, therefore, rightfully concluded that the respondent-plaintiff had ownership rights in the suit property, whereas the appellant-defendant had no such proprietary rights.
(3.) A concurrent finding was also recorded by the courts below that the appellant-defendant Kali Ram was merely a licensee. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant could not bring to the notice of this court any evidence on the basis of which the appellant- defendant could establish any other right vis-a-vis of the suit property. That being so, there is no justification whatsoever to interfere in the finding recorded by the courts below that the appellant-defendant was in occupation of the suit property as a licensee. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.;