- (1.) NONE appears for the respondents ­ plaintiffs ­ landlords, despite service.
(2.) THE present First Appeal has been filed by the defendant ­ tenant, Boota Ram against the judgment and decree of possession dated 31.07.1995 in Civil Suit No.33/94 {5/89} ­ Mukh Ram and Thakar Ram, both sons of Chhoga Ram vs. Boota Ram s/o Ganpat Ram of learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh in respect of a suit house situated in village Satipura, district Hanumangarh. The plaintiffs, Mukh Ram and Thakar Ram both sons of Chhoga Ram came with a case before the trial court that their father Chhoga Ram and his brother Hazari Ram had purchased a plot ad-measuring 50' x 40' Yards from Gram Panchayat, Satipura on 20.08.1957, for which a Patta Ex.1 was issued in their favour by the said Gram Panchayat. Each of the brothers, Chhoga Ram and Hazari Ram divided their half share of the said plot ad-measuring 25' x 40' yards. The eastern side of the plot of 25' x 40', fell in the share of Hazari Ram and western side of the plot of 25' x 40' fell in the share of Chhoga Ram. The other brother Hazari Ram sold his half vacant portion of eastern side of the plot to one Charan Singh, whereas Chhoga Ram, father of the plaintiffs, constructed a residential house on the remaining western side portion of 25 x 40 Yards of the plot. After the death of their father, plaintiffs became the owners of the said residential house, which was given to the defendant Boota Ram by an oral license or permission by their uncle Hazari Ram, when they were living at 21 GB, Vijay Nagar away from the suit premises, with an understanding that when asked to hand over the vacant possession, the defendant, Boota Ram would so hand over the vacant possession, but since 1988 when the plaintiff asked the defendant Boota Ram to hand over the vacant possession, he refused to do so and thereupon by a notice dated 19.09.1988 Ex.A/1, his license was terminated and the defendant was asked to give vacant possession of the said suit premises to the plaintiffs, which he failed to hand over and, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits of Rs.100.00 per month before the learned trial court of Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh.
(3.) THE defendant ­ Boota Ram took the defence before the learned trial court that the plaintiffs have failed to produce the documentary evidence of mutual partition between Chhoga Ram and Hazari Ram and that the Patta ­ Ex.1 issued in their favour was forged and also that he had a long possession over the suit house for last 35 years and, thus, was residing there and, therefore, had become owner of the said property by the adverse possession and further the defendant took the defence that there was an Agreement to Sell in favour of the defendant dated 01.06.1982 Ex.A/2 and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree of possession.;