The main legal point established in the judgment is that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II Solan, District Solan, H.P., in CA No. 34 ADJ- II/13 of 2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge-II( Jr. Div.), Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby civil suit bearing case No. 313/1 of 2014/10 having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff") came to be decreed.

2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that, plaintiff filed a suit for possession averring therein that plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.84/267, Khasra No.1192/1074/890 and 1080/902, kitas 2, measuring 549 Sq. meters, situated in Mauza Dehun, Pargana Bharoli Khurd, Tehsil and District Una, alongwith building existing thereupon known as Geeta Bhawan. Plaintiff averred in the suit that appellant/defendant (herein after referred to as "the defendant") has no right, title or interest being absolute stranger over the suit property, which is the self acquired property of the plaintiff. Perusal of plaint reveals that defendant is daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, however on account of some differences, plaintiff had disowned and disinherited the defendant and her husband from his property and to this effect, advertisement was published in daily newspaper on 3.3.2010. Plaintiff alleged that defendant has forcibly kept one room, one kitchen and toilet having an area of 14.81 Sq.meters in the aforesaid building and is not vacating the premises despite repeated requests. As per the plaintiff, defendant had also given undertaking to vacate the premises before police, but she instead of honouring her commitment has misbehaved and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and as such, plaintiff served the defendant with legal notice. Plaintiff also averred in the plaint that defendant is Trained Graduate Teacher in GSSS at Kanda and she has illegally locked the premises in dispute with a view to harass him. Plaintiff claimed that since he being owner of the premises is legally entitled for its possession and defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit property, defendant is liable to pay mesne profits @ Rs.2000/- per month alongwith interest @ 12 per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing the suit.

3. Defendant by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff in his plaint and claimed before the court below that she is TGT in Education Department Since 2001. She claimed before the court below that her father in law i.e. plaintiff had provided her two room set on the first floor of the building to live alongwith her husband and daughter, and in this regard, he used to take Rs. 1500 per month as rent. Since Month of July, 1999, she had been residing in the said premises as a tenant, however, in the month of March, 2010, plaintiff wrongly dispossessed her from one room out of the two room set and as such, she is in possession of the one room set since March, 2010 and had been paying Rs. 750/- p.m. as rent. Besides above, defendant also claimed before the court below that she provided funds to the plaintiff for construction of the second floor in the building by withdrawing money from GPF and as such, she has right in the building as owner of the second floor. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, court below framed following issues:

"1. Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree for possession, as prayed for? ..OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for decree of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?....OPD

4. Whetherthe plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff ha