SHAH PUKHRAJ AND OTHERS Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF KESHARI MAL
LAWS(RAJ)-2007-7-125
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 27,2007

Shah Pukhraj And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Legal Representatives Of Keshari Mal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 81 dated March 24, 2000.
(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that Late Kesarimal filed a suit for possession of house No. 192 situated at Sirohi. Plaintiff Kesarimal later on died during the pendency of First appeal, therefore, his legal representatives were brought on record. It was the case of plaintiff that land measuring 2208 sq.yds. was purchased by his father Dhupaji vide Patta No. 93 dated 5.4.1935 in the name of Shah Dhupaji Kesarimal Dahaji. After purchase of land, various constructions were undertaken which includes construction of a house. The case of the plaintiff was that he had given house to Javer Chand three years before his death. Said Shri Javer Chand died in Samvat Year 2006. After death of Javer Chand, defendants No. 1 to 4 were allowed to continue to occupy the property in question, though during the intervening period, in a decree against defendant No. 1 Pukhraj, house in question was attached by the decree holder. On raising objection by the plaintiff regarding right of the defendant-Pukhraj, the matter was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 18.2.1956, by holding the right of the plaintiff on the property, against which defendant No.1 Pukhraj did not file an appeal.
(3.) After decision of the objections in favour of the plaintiff by the Munsif Court, Bail dated 18.2.1956, plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises. When the defendant failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiff preferred a suit for possession along with claim of mesne profits. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he denied title of the plaintiff and claimed property to be a joint property of his father Javer Chand with that of Dhupaji Kesarimal. It was alleged that his father Javer Chand has purchased property jointly and, thereafter, raised construction of house, thus they are in possession of the property since Samvat year 1989. The defendant denied the allegation of occupation of house by them under the licence of plaintiff.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.