- (1.) Cm No.12210-C of 2016 1. By this application, the date of hearing in this appeal is sought to be advanced, on the ground that warrants of possession have been issued, in execution proceedings.
(2.) Since notice was still to be issued in the appeal itself, the application is accepted and the appeal is taken up for hearing today itself. 1. In this appeal, the defendants, who are the son and daughter-inlaw of the respondent-plaintiff, seek reversal of the judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, and the learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in his favour and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree was dismissed. 2. Very briefly, the respondent-plaintiffs' suit sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the appellants-defendants to vacate and hand over actual physical possession of one room on the first floor, including a common courtyard, staircase, latrine and bathroom, in a double storeyed residential house owned by the plaintiff, fully described in the plaint filed. The plaintiff had stated that he was residing on the ground floor of the said house and that his son and daughter-in-law, i.e. the defendants, were quarrelsome and were disrespectful towards him, though he was 75 years of age. It was further stated that due to the misbehaviour of the defendants, he had asked them many times to vacate the portion occupied by them, which according to the plaintiff, they were occupying as licensees and that he had eventually served a notice for such vacation on 16.5.2013 by registered AD post, also asking them to pay mesne profit to him after expiry of the notice period, @ Rs.100/- per month.
(3.) Upon notice issued to them, the defendants had filed a joint written statement denying the contents of the plaint and stating that the suit property was actually ancestral, owned by the wifes' sister of Shri Chhota Lal, grand father of the first defendant and maternal aunt of the plaintiff. It was further contended that she had adopted the first defendant (wrongly typed as plaintiff No.1 in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge) and as such he had been living in the house as its owner. It was still further pleaded that the first defendant had reconstructed the ground floor of the said house many times with his own funds and that the first floor was newly constructed by him. As such he and his wife were living there as owners of the house and not as licensees and actually the plaintiff had no concern with the property. It was further contended that defendant No.2 was living in the house since her marriage and as such, it was her matrimonial home in which she had given birth to their four children, of whom two had been married off.;