- (1.) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Smt.Bharpai widow of Tek Chand respondent-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining her son-in-law Ved Parkash son of Chandgi Ram appellant-defendant (for short "the defendant") from interfering in her peaceful possession over the house in dispute. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court dismissed her (plaintiff) suit, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 12.8.1986.
(2.) Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 9.1.1987, which, in substance, is (paras 8 to 10) as under:- "8. This was the suit for permanent injunction in which question of title with respect to the suit property had to be gone into collaterally because the plaintiff claims herself to be owner in possession of the house in dispute and to the contrary the defendant averred that he is the owner in possession of the house in dispute. The evidence placed on record by the parties as appreciated by the trial Court goes to show that it is the defendant, who appears to be the owner of the house in dispute. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree shows that the plaintiff is living in the house in dispute as a licensee because the defendant in his statement clearly admitted that now the plaintiff is residing in the house in dispute and she is not vacating the house. His statement shows that he had allowed the plaintiff to live in the house in dispute just after the death of her daughter, when she had come to condole the death of her daughter who had died in 1982. He has admitted that he was transferred from Rohtak to Jind about 6-7 years ago and that his children reside wit him. 9. Thus from the above it stands clearly established on record and as rightly observed by the learned trial court that the plaintiff at present is residing in the house in dispute as a licensee. It is the established law that even a licensee has a right to stay in the property till licence is cancelled and the licensee is evicted according to law. A licensee cannot be thrown forcibly on the road from the licensed promises. 10. The learned trial court, as such, appears to have erred in holding that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable because her possession is that of a licensee. As already mentioned above it was a simple suit for permanent injunction and if the plaintiff had failed to prove herself to be the owner of the house in dispute, at least she was entitled to the injunction on the ground of her being in possession thereof."
(3.) The appellant-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist appellate Court and preferred the present regular second appeal.;