Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) THE appellants had brought a suit for possession of a house situated in Mohalla Khatriyan, Kaithal numbered differently at different times in the property register of Municipal Committee, Kaithal. It has been described by boundaries in paragraph no.1 of the plaint. They have claimed that this house was purchased by their predecessor -in -interest named Matu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1944 from the previous owners Babu Hari Kishan and others and after the death of Matu Ram, the plaintiffs are the owners of the house in suit. The defendants approached plaintiff no.1 some time back for permission to use three rooms of the house on the first floor as licensees. The said permission was granted to them. After some time, they broke open the locks of other rooms and occupied all the three floors of the house except one room on the ground floor shown in yellow colour in the site plan. Claiming that they are now in illegal possession of the house except the yellow coloured room, a decree for possession had been sought against the defendants in respect of the said house.
(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit taking a few preliminary objections. According to them, the market value of the suit property is more than Rs.20,000/ -and the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Non -joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the daughters of Wazir Chand and the daughters of Matu Ram is also pleaded against the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendants have claimed that they are in possession of the disputed house as tenants under Sham Sunder, plaintiff no.2 from whom the house was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.20/ -per month eleven years back and the rent of the house was increased to Rs.50/ -per month in June, 1979. Claiming the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties, the suit was also said to be not maintainable. It was denied in the reply on merits that three rooms of the house were taken as licensees and that the other rooms were forcibly occupied. It is claimed that entire house is in their possession as tenants. Therefore, the suit was prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by learned trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the co -owners of the house as alleged in para 2 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the defendants have approached the plaintiff no.1 to use only the three rooms of the house as licensee as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the defendants are in illegal occupation of the house in dispute as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? OPP
(3.) WHETHER the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for? OPP;