D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1980 of City Civil Court at Ahmedabad dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the demised property from the defendants as well as for recovery of mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

( 3 ) THE disputed property bearing Survey No. 3912 was owned by the appellants husband who was the sole owner of the same. The husband of the appellant arranged for marriage of the defendants. They are step sons of the appellants - plaintiffs husband. After marriage, defendant No. 1 started quarreling, hence, they were asked to live separately in the same house in separate portion on licence basis. Thereafter, on 20-4-1973, the husband of the appellant made oral gift of the entire property in favour of the appellant. A registered declaration was made in that connection on 10-5-1973. From the date of registration of declaration, the plaintiff claimed to be absolute owner of the suit property. The husband of the appellant plaintiff expired on 15th March, 1975. On account of constant quarreling amongst the defendants, it was inconvenient for the appellant to stay in the house, consequently, notice was given to the defendants to vacate the premises but with no result. Licence was revoked through registered notice. But again possession was not delivered. On the other hand, false reply to the notice was given on 12-2-1975. The reply notice was also replied by the plaintiff appellant. Ultimately, the appellant had to move application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act for recovery of possession from the defendants. The said suit was dismissed with observation that the plaintiff may move appropriate court in the matter. Since licence was revoked and the defendants respondents did not hand over possession of the portion in their occupation, hence, suit was filed for recovery of possession of disputed portion from the defendants respondents. Prayer was also made for a decree for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 20/per month with effect from 17-1-1975.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 on various grounds viz. that the court fee paid was insufficient that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties viz. the sisters of all the defendants. It was denied that the defendants were residing in the disputed premises as licensees from their father. On the other hand, they pleaded that they are residing in their own right as owner of the property. The oral gift in favour of the plaintiff appellant was also denied by them, so also the registered declaration. The plaintiffs absolute ownership in the property was disputed by them. The validity of the gift was challenged on the ground that it was not made in presence of anybody nor possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff appellant. They also pleaded that since they are residing in the suit premises in their own right since last 30 years, the plaintiff has no right either to recover possession or to recover mesne profits.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trail court framed seven issues. The findings of the trial court are that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. It further found that the plaintiff failed to establish that she became the owner of the suit property under a valid gift made in her favour by her deceased husband. On the point of licence, the finding of the trial court is that the defendants were licensees in the suit property from the husband of the plaintiff appellant and thereafter, as licensees from the plaintiff appellant and that the licence was validly revoked. The trial court further found that the plaintiff is not entitled to mesne profits claimed by her. The plea of the defendants regarding non joinder of necessary parties was repelled by the trial court. The trial court further found that the suit was properly valued and the court fee paid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document