JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The Plaintiff-respondent have filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the portion of house situated in Yadvinder Colony, Patiala against their son and daughter-of-law.
2. After the death of Parkash Wati, her son and daughter were impleaded as plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Brij Bhushan Lal and plaintiff No. 3 Sneh Lata have died during the pendency of the present appeal. Sons and daughters of Sneh Lata have been ordered to be impleaded to represent the estate of deceased plaintiff No. 3, however, in respect of plaintiff No. 1 they were impleaded as legal representative on March 26, 2004 on the basis of registered Will dated 25.6.1979 executed by plaintiff No. 1 in favour of his daughter Sneh Lata. Such application was opposed by the present appellant on the ground that the Will dated 25.6.1979 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The legal representatives were ordered to be impleaded to represent the estate or deceased plaintiff No. 1 for the purpose of representing the estate of deceased in the present proceedings with liberty to the legal representatives to settle their rights by way of independent proceedings.
3. The suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiffs have purchased two plots measuring 700 square yards in the year 1958-59 and constructed house in dispute. It is alleged that portion of a house in dispute was given to the defendants as a licensee in or around 1974 but due to quarrelsome attitude of the defendants the relations became strained and notice dated 27.6.1979 was given terminating the licence. However, the defendants failed to vacate the portion, thus necessitating the filing of the suit for mandatory injunction.
4. The defendant-appellants denied the allegations of purchase of the plots by the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the construction of the house was made with the joint funds of the family. It was alleged that the defendants are in possession of the portion of the house as co-owner of the house. Both the courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the possession of the defendant-appellants is that of a licensee and thus, a decree for mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.
5. The plots underneath the house have been purchased by the plaintiffs vide sale-deed Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. The execution of such sale-deed is proved by Babu Ram PW-1 and Harinder Sarup PW-7. Plaintiff Brij Bhushan has also appeared as PW-2 to prove the purchase of the plots. The plea of the defendants is that nucleus for the purchase of the property was income from the ancestral property situated a Sirhind. However, it has been found that the plaintiff Brij Bhushan was ousted from Sirhind due to ill-treatment of his mother. There is no proof of any contribution towards the purchase from the family funds. In respect of the contribution of the defendants it has been found that the marriage of defendant No. 1 was solemnised in the year 1969. In 1958-59 when the plot was purchased defendant No. 1 was a student of F.A. It has been found that there is hardly any scope for a student of F.A. to financially help his father rather he will be a drain to the purse of the father at that time. It has been found that Brij Bhushan plaintiff parted company with his parents at Sirhind in 1947 and lived at Patiala in a rented accommodation. He became a reputed journalist up to the year 1958 as he was correspondent of many local and national dailies and periodical papers. It was found that purchase of plot for Rs. 4,400/- is normal. It has been further found that the construction has been raised after raising the loan from the Government as is clear from application Ex.P-5. Loan is taken by the plaintiff in his name for the construction of the house. The plea regarding further construction in the year 1970 and 1973 was negatived by the courts below on the ground that there is no documentary proof of construction up to the year 1969 as he was almost a student and his wife was a teacher at the time of the marriage in the year 1969. The statement of defendant Dr. Parshotam Kumar as D.W. 2 to the effect that he contributed Rs. 3,000/- for construction in the year 1970 was found to be negligible amount. It was found that such small amount is towards family welfare. The construction with such amount is not sufficient to acquire ownership in the immovable property. It has been found that till 1974, the defendant have been sharing the mess with the family. It was, thus, concluded that the defendants are not co-sharers in the house in dispute. On the basis of such findings, it has been found that the possession of the defendants is that of a licensee and therefore, the decree for mandatory injunction was granted. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been upheld in appeal.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was gainfully employed and has made contribution of Rs. 3,000/- and thus he is a co-sharer in the house as the part of the construction was raised with the fund supplied by the appellant. However, I am unable to accept such an argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
8. As per the findings recorded by the courts below the appellant and his wife were joint in mess till the year 1974. Contribution of Rs. 3,000/- even if it is believed to have been made was towards any of the expenses of the family. Plot has been purchased in the year 1958-59. The contention that the construction was raised thereafter by drawing arrears from Chandigarh in the year 1970. However, there is no proof of further construction in the year 1970 or 1973 being raised with the contribution provided by the defendant. In fact, both the courts have recorded findings of fact based upon appreciation of evidence that the defendant-appellant has not contributed any amount towards the construction of any part of the house. Such finding is possible finding on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in such finding to take a different view in the second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.