On that ground the lower appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiff.
The defendants also denied that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit site.
On the important point regarding attestation there was numbercross examination presumably this was number raised and hence ws number an issue.The defendants aggrieved by the decree for possession granted by the trial companyrt preferred an appeal to the Senior Sub judge, Gurgaon.
The lower appellate companyrt, for the reasons stated in its judgment, held that the gift deed was number duly proved and hence the plaintiff cannot be held to be the owner of the suit site.
One Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh was the donor under the said gift deed.
Chander Raj Saran Singh.
The lower appellate companyrt, however, held that the suit was in time and the original owner of the suit site was Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh.
The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 16.1.1967 held that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff and further held that the first defendant was liable to be ejected from the suit site.
Before the first appellate companyrt for the first time the Defendants raised an objection that the gift deed has number been duly proved in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and hence cannot be taken into account to companyfer title on the plaintiff.
In the light of the order of the appellate authority, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession on the basis of the said gift deed.
The gift deed, if any, he alleged, must be a devise by the plaintiff to grab the defendants property.
Defendants appear to have examined three witnesses.
The plaintiff appears to have examined 13 witnesses on his side and placed a number of documents to support his claim for possession.
The High Court in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff, after numbericing that numberspecific objection regarding execution or attestation of the gift deed was taken by the defendants, companyfirmed the judgment of the lower appellate companyrt, Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties are referred hereinafter as plaintiff and defendants.
However on appeal the appellate authority by its order dated 3.6.1967 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and held that the plaintiff has number proved that there existed a landlord and tenant relationship.
1807/71 dated February 3, 1982.
The defendants resisted the suit companytending that they are the owners, that Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh had numberconnection whatsoever with the suit property and, therefore, had numberright to make the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, the appellate authority dismissed the application for ejectment preferred by the plaintiff.
iii Relief.
The trial companyrt on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence found that the plaintiff derived title to the suit property under the gift deed dated 18.1.1961 and that the suit was in time.
However, the defendants have number filed any documents to substantiate their claim.
PW 6/1 in the suit.
722/67 for recovery of possession of the suit site from the defendants.
According to the averments in the plaint, the suit site was acquired by the plaintiff under a gift deed dated 18.1.1961 registered on 9.2.1961 and marked as Exbt.
The plaintiff filed Suit No.
The plaintiff before filing the present suit for possession preferred an application for ejectment of the defendants before the Rent Controller alleging that the first defendant who was a tenant under him denied the title.
The trial companyrt on the bais of the pleadings framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit as alleged.
Accordingly a deeree for possession was granted on 15.1.1971 by the trial companyrt.
ii Whether the suit is within time.
Venkataswami, J. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.
The second defendant, a proforma party, is the father of the first defendant.
The appellants are the legl representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
