Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 604
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Rakesh Kumar Duggal
Versus
Baldev Kumar Duggal
Regular Second Appeal No. 2 of 1996,
Decided On : MAY 28, 2001
Headnote:
[FACT OF THE CASE] This case involves a dispute over the possession of a property between Baldev Kumar Duggal and his brother Rakesh Kumar Duggal and his wife Geeta Rani Duggal. Baldev Kumar Duggal filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Rakesh Kumar Duggal and his wife, seeking possession of certain premises and recovery of damages for unauthorized use and occupation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Baldev Kumar Duggal, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in an appeal. The defendants then appealed to the higher court, leading to the current judgment. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the property in question was not ancestral or joint Hindu family property, but the self-acquired property of Nihal Chand Duggal, the father of the parties involved. The court held that Baldev Kumar Duggal was the absolute owner of the property, having purchased it from his father, and that the defendants were licensees under him. The court also found that the entire payment for the property was made by Baldev Kumar Duggal, and that Nihal Chand Duggal had no contribution towards the repayment of the loan or the construction of the property. [ISSUES] The issues in the case included whether the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties, whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises and recovery of damages, and whether the property was self-acquired by Nihal Chand Duggal. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including the source of the purchase money, the nature and possession of the property, and the conduct of the parties involved. The court also considered the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the right to recover property) Act, 1988. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the appeal, allowing the appellants one year to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent. No costs were awarded.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 14-12-1995 whereby he had dismissed the appeal of Rakesh Kumar Duggal son of Nihal Chand Duggal and his wife Geeta Rani Duggal (appellants herein) against the judgment and decree dated 9-6-1989 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh whereby he had decreed the suit of Baldev Kumar Duggal (respondent herein) for mandatory injunction directing Rakesh Kumar Duggal and his wife to vacate possession of one room and kitchen on the first floor (room on the left side and kitchen on the right side) and one room at Barsati of House No. 1157, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh and further for recovery of Rs. 1085.00 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15.00 per day as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of these premises. Facts :
2. For appreciating better the facts of the case, following pedigree-table is set out:
3. Besides, Nihal Chand Duggal had 7 daughters namely Asha Duggal, Parveen Duggal, Sukhvarsha Duggal etc. Smt. Raj Duggal is the widow of Narinder Kumar Duggal, Baldev Kumar Duggal filed suit for mandatory injunction against Rakesh Kumar Duggal and his wife Geeta Rani Duggal, directing them to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of one room and kitchen on the first floor (room on the left side and kitchen on the right side) and one room at Barsati of House No. 1157, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh to him and for the recovery of Rs. 1190.00 on account of unauthorised use and occupation of these premises by them after the notice period. As per Baldev Kumar Duggal he is absolute owner of House No. 1157, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, House No. 1157, bearing Plot No. 2-B Sector 21-B, Chandigarh was constructed by him out of his own funds, Conveyance deed was also issued to him by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh.
4. Defendant Rakesh Kumar Duggal is his brother, defendant No. 2 Geeta Rani Duggal is his wife. They are occupying one room and kitchen in the first floor (room on the left side and kitchen on the right side) and one room at the Barsati of House No. 1157, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh as his licensees, with the passage of time, plaintiffs children have grown up and the accomodation in his occupation is insufficient. He requires these premises for his own use and occupation. Smt. Geeta Rani Duggal-defendant has already purchased house bearing No. 2070, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh on lease hold basis in the year, 1984. Instead of shifting to that house, they have rented it out. Firstly in the month of April, 1984 he requested them to vacate and hand-over the possession of these premises to him. They sought time saying that defendant Geeta Rani Duggal had applied for MIG House and she was expecting its allotment in the near future. He allowed them to keep occupying these premises till the allotment of MIG house to them. They did not vacate and hand-over the possession of these premises to him even after the allotment of MIG house to them, when the requests made by him time and again to them for vacating these premises failed, he served them with notice on 21-12-1985 revoking license in their favour. They were called upon to vacate these premises within 15 days of the receipt of that notice. Notice period expired on 8-1-1986. After 8-1-1986, defendants use and occupation of these premises became unauthorised. They are liable to pay Rs. 35.00 per day as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of these premises for the period 8-1-1986 to 7-2-1986 i.e. till the filing of the suit and they are liable to pay damages at the said rate till the demised premises is vacated by them.
5. It was also prayed that the decree for payment of future damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of these premises by the defendants be also passed.
6. Defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff was the exclusive and absolute owner of House No. 1157, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh or the same was constructed by him. In fac
