- (1.)This is defendant's appeal against judgment and decree dtd. 15/09/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.1A/2013 by which, the learned Trial Court has partly allowed plaintiff's case and granted decree of possession and also restrained defendants from creating nuisance.
(2.)Plaintiff and defendants belong to one family. Plaintiff - Rajkumar Nanda and defendants - Nirmala Nanda and Mina Nanda are the son and the daughters of Late Nem Nath Nanda. Ku. Anchal Arora is the daughter of Late Smt. Anjana Arora (daughter of Late Nem Nath Nanda) and Sanjay Shringari is the son of Smt. Krishnadevi Shringari (daughter of Late Nem Nath Nanda). Plaintiff - Rajkumar Nanda filed a suit seeking decree of vacant possession, permanent injunction and ancillary relief on the pleadings inter alia that the property in dispute, consisting of double story house, situated in Dhamtari is his self acquired property. It was pleaded that he had permitted the defendants to reside in some of the rooms of ground floor of his house, keeping in view that the sisters will get some help and property would also be taken care of. He further pleaded that he has always helped his sisters and their sons and daughters. It was also pleaded that the defendants 2 and 3 are having in their possession, a huge building along with plots and all these arrangements have been made by the plaintiff for the defendants. The defendants have let on rent, their own building and are residing in the house owned by the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that as the plaintiff is now old and as he finds it difficult to reside in first floor, he requested the defendants to vacate the ground floor which was not acceded to. Finally, a notice of eviction was issued to the defendants on 13/11/2009. As the defendants did not vacate the premises, a cause of action arose for seeking decree of eviction. Further pleading of the plaintiff was that the defendants are also creating all kinds of nuisance, therefore, they may be restrained from creating such nuisance.
(3.)All the defendants filed one common written statement in which, the plaintiff's title was disputed that it was self acquired property of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the suit house was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant namely, Nem Nath Nanda from his own income, though, it was purchased in the name of plaintiff. Thereafter, it was renovated in the year 1971 and since then, the defendants are residing in the house. Defendants No.1 and 3 are unmarried daughters and therefore, right from the beginning, they are residing in the disputed house. It was further pleaded that as the defendants 1 and 3 were unmarried daughters, they throughout resided with the mother and the father in the disputed house and under a settlement made by their father, defendants 1 and 3 are in occupation of the disputed house as it's owner. It was pleaded that all their brothers and sisters relinquished their share under family settlement in favour of defendants 1 and 3.