Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Whether the pleading of tenancy alone would serve the purpose?

3. Defendants Dalel Singh and Karam Singh sons of Chhaju Ram are in second appeal against judgment and decree dated 01.02.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, confirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2000, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat.

4. Plaintiff Kalu filed suit for declaration and in alternative for possession by way of pre-emption of House No.575, situated within abadi-deh (Lal Dora) of village Pinana, District Sonepat having specified dimensions as shown in Para No.1 of the plaint. The aforesaid house was exclusively owned by defendants No.3 to 5 and the plaintiff claimed himself to be a tenant in a portion marked ABCDEFGH out of house marked shown by ABCDXH, which is double storeyed house.

7. The plaintiff in Para No.7 of the plaintiff specifically pleaded that on 09.06.1993, the defendants No1 and 2 i.e. the appellants in collusion with BDPF, Sonepat dismantled the roof of first floor and took away wooden planks/karis which were 120 in numbers and were of the size of 4"x4"x10" and four sets of doors for which they had no right and had not returned to the plaintiff despite repeated requests. Damage to the tune of `10,000/- was claimed by the plaintiff, which were required to be computed and deducted in favour of the plaintiff.

9. The suit was contested by the defendants No.1 and 2 as defendants No.3 to 5 were proceeded against exparte. The defendants took all the customary pleas of locus-standi and maintainability besides negating the plea of tenancy in favour of plaintiff. The defendants took up the stand that name of the landlord/owner had not been mentioned under whom the plaintiff claimed himself to be tenant nor the particulars of tenancy had been mentioned. The condition of the house was stated to be dilapidated and was demolished by the defendants. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat wrote to the defendants No.1 and 2 directing them to demolish the wall of the house within specified time apprehending injury to someone on account of its falling. BDPO, Sonepat also directed the defendants to demolish the house in dispute as some untoward incident was apprehended on account of dilapidated nature of the wall. The claim of the plaintiff was refuted on all necessary fronts.