Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. Matu Ram was unmarried and issueless. He had three nephews, (1) Bal Krishan, (2) Surender Kumar and (3) Ram Kishan. On 2.2.1981, Matu Ram suffered a consent decree regarding the house in dispute in favour of Bal Krishan. As a result of the consent decree, instead of Matu Ram, Bal Krishan became the owner of the house. On 4.6.1981, Bal Krishan filed a suit against Surinder Kumar for mandatory injunction directing him to deliver possession of the portion of the house in his occupation to the plaintiff on the plea that the plaintiff was the owner thereof under the consent decree and earlier he was provided shelter gratuitously by Matu Ram being his real nephew and after the consent decree, he became licensee under the plaintiff.

2. The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he was the owner in possession of the house and he had constructed the same and Matu Ram as his uncle, assisted him in the construction work. In the alternative he claimed ownership by adverse possession. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that Matu Ram was the owner of the house as he had raised the construction although the site underneath the house belong