Prakash Krishna, J.:

Appeal stands admitted. The record has been received.

This is defendants' appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the original judgment and decree dated 3rd March, 2012 passed in O.S. No.57 of 1999 whereby the suit for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants and for recovery of damages @ Rs.3,000/- per month has been decreed.

Satya Prakash Goel, the plaintiff, instituted the aforesaid suit in respect of the property known as 2/1406/214, Chandra Nagar, Saharanpur. Indisputably, the plaintiff respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is the owner thereof. The suit was filed against Ajai Goel, Vinay Goel sons of Chandra Prakash Goel and Chandra Prakash Goel ( hereinafter referred to as the defendants). The parties are closely related with each other. Satya Prakash Goel, the plaintiff and Chandra Prakash Goel who is the defendant no.3, are brothers and Ajai Goel and Vinay Goel, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are nephews of the plaintiff.

The plaint was filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and the defendants without any right or authority illegally occupied the property in question in absence of the plaintiff in the month of April, 1998. The defendant no.1 obtained the electric connection by giving a false affidavit to the Electricity Department claiming himself as the owner of the property in question and has started a business of selling of marble stones. The parties being closely related, the plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the disputed property and ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 7th November, 1998 requesting them to hand over the peaceful possession but the defendants paid no heed to it. Instead, in reply, they set out a false case that they are tenants of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- since the year 1997. It was also falsely stated by them that the construction standing thereon belongs to them. The suit was filed claiming damages at the Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of ten months from April, 1998 to the date of presentation of the plaint. Future damages was also claimed.

The suit was contested by filing a joint written statement by the defendants. The defendants did not deny the ownership of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. They took a stand that the property in dispute is in the nature of a piece of land and was earlier in the possession of one partnership Firm namely Kumar & Company and in the said partnership Firm the plaintiff was one of the partners. Subsequently, he withdrew himself and his wife Smt. Dulari was made partner in his place. The said Firm has been paying the municipal taxes. In the year 1997, Ajai Goel and Vinay Goel, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 who were partners in the business under the name and style of M/s. AB Enterprizes, took the property in dispute on rent from the plaintiff for the purposes of godown. At the time of letting, it was in the shape of open vacant land surrounded by the boundary wall and the tenant raised construction thereon with the consent of the plaintiff. The rent was at the rate of Rs.300/- per month and they have constructed a tin shed out of their own expenses and their possession is not unauthorised one. The allegation that the standing construction belongs to the plaintiff, was denied. The plea that the suit is undervalued and insufficient court fees has been paid, were also raised.

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendants have taken the possession of the property in dispute unauthorisedly in the month of April, 1998, as pleaded in the plaint? If so, its effect.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get damages @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get damages @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the defendants?

4. Whether the suit has been undervalued and court fees paid thereon is insufficient?

5. Whether the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document