JUDGMENT

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RSA’ for short) is preferred by the appellant-defendant to impugn the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1988 rendered by the learned District Judge, Sangrur. By way of the aforementioned decree, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla, dated 04.09.1986, whereby the respondent-plaintiff’s suit for a mandatory injunction seeking possession or, in the alternative, a decree for possession was settled in favor of the respondent.

1.1. The appellant herein assails the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, contending that the impugned judgments are legally untenable and suffer from patent illegalities. It is further submitted that the findings are vitiated by material errors of fact and law, warranting the intervention of this Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is the lawful owner of the suit house, having purchased the same from Kafila Begum through a valid sale transaction. It is averred that the defendant, being the brother of the plaintiff, was permitted to occupy the suit premises merely as a licensee. The said licence was duly terminated by the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 20.01.1983. Despite such termination, the defendant has failed to vacate the premises or deliver vacant possession thereof, and the issuance of the aforesaid notice has not elicited any compliance.

3. Upon due service, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, vehemently contesting the suit. It is pleaded that late Dr. Arjun Dev, father of the parties, was the true and beneficial owner of the suit property, having purchased the same from Kafila Begum, and that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is merely ostensible, conferring no enforceable right.

3.1. The defendant has denied his status as a licensee and asserted independent ownership, contending that the property was settled upon him in 1962, pursuant to which he has remained in continuous possession. The impugned sale deed is alleged to be benami in nature.

3.2. In the alternative, the defendant claims title by adverse possession, coupled with a plea of estoppel on account of substantial improvements effected by him. A claim for reimbursement of 30,000/- towards such improvements has also been raised in the event of an adverse decree.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication, reaffirming his ownership claim and asserting that the defendant’s possession was permissive. Having considered the pleadings and arguments from both sides, the Court framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute? OPP.

2. Whether the defendant was in possession of the house in dispute as licencee under the plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

4. Whether the defendant has become owner of the house in dispute by way of adverse possession? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is est opped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the defendant has made any improvements in the house in dispute, if so, of what value and what is the effect?OPD.

7. Relief.

4.1. In addition to the issues initially framed, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla, vide order dated 09.12.1985, deemed it appropriate to frame the following additional issues for determination, in order to comprehensively adjudicate the controversies arising between the parties:-

6-A. Whether Dr. Arjun Dev was the real owner of the house in dispute and the sale deed dt.6-6-59 is benami in favour of Kewal Krishan plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPD.

6-3. Whether Br. Arjun Dev had transferred and given the suit house to defendant as alleged in the written statement? If so, its effect? OPD.

5. Both parties were granted full opportunity to adduce evidence pursuant to the framing o