KAN SINGH, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal directed against the appellate judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Baran dated 2-5-64 affirming the decree dismissing the suit by the Munsif, Baran and arises out of a suit for possession of a portion of a house situated in village Antah, district Kota.

According to the plaintiff, the house in question, in a portion of which defendant-respondent Kishore Singh, now represented by his legal representatives, was living belonged to one Nathaji. Nathaji had a son Pannalal who died in 1932. He had two daughters. Dhool Singh, the plaintiff, is the son of one daughter and Kishore Singh, defendant, was the son of another. Pannalal had a son Dhannalal who died during the life time of his father Pannalal. Pannalal was survived by his widow Kesar Bai. Kesar Bai was alleged to have gifted the house in question to the plaintiff Dhool Singh and the same was evidenced by a registered gift deed Ex. 1. On 25-10-1944 the plaintiff Dhool Singh had sold a portion of the house to one Kadar Bux by a registered sale deed Ex. 2 on record. The plaintiff proceeded to say that in 1945 or 1946 the defendant Kishore Singh who was his first cousin was permitted by him to live in a portion of the house, gifted to him by Kesar Bai as a licensee. His case was that a document had been written to that effect in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff wanted to have possession of this portion of the house from the defendant, but as the defendant was not vacating it he filed the suit in the court of Munsif, Baran on 6 5-59.

2. The defendant denied that the disputed portion of the house belonged to the plaintiff or that he had taken it from him as a licensee. He asserred that this portion of the house belonged to him. According to him, the portion of the house sold by the plaintiff to Kadar Bux was given to his mother by his maternal grand father at the time of her marriage with the defendants father in Kanya Dan but as this portion had been unlawfully sold by the plaintiff to Kadar Bux the parties came to a settlement and in lieu of the portion sold by the plaintiff the portion in dispute was made over to the defendant and thus the defendant was living in that portion as an owner.

3. The learned Munsif framed a number of issues. Both the parties led their evidence. The learned Munsiff found that the whole of the house was gifted by Smt. Kesar Bai to the plaintiff, that the defendant has not been able to establish that the house had been given in Kanya Dan to the defendants mother by his maternal grand father and that the portion in dispute was given by the plaintiff to the defendant for residential purposes. The learned Munsif negatived the assertion regarding the portion of the house being obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff in lieu of the portion sold by the plaintiff to Kadar Bux. The learned Munsif, however, found that Rs. 125/-had been spent by the defendant in constructing a room in the portion which was in the portion which was in his possession. It was also held that the suit was within limitation. However, the learned Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to revoke the licence and evict the defendant as the permission to live in the house was given to the defendant from generation to generation. For this the learned Munsif placed reliance on the statements of two of the plaintiffs witnesses namely, P. W. 4 Kadar Bux and P.W. 5 Vishambhar Dayal. In the result, he dismissed the suit.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff went up in appeal to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Baran. The learned Senior Civil Judge affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif: (i) that the gift deed Ex. 1 was executed by Smt. Kesar Bai in favour of the plaintiff, (2) that it has not been established by the defendant that the disputed portion of the house had been given to him by the plaintiff in lieu of the portion sold to Kadar Bux,(3) the defendant had spent atleast Rs. 12

Click Here to Read the rest of this document