3 Outlining the facts briefly, the Respondent Plaintiffs case before the Trial Court was that he was the owner allottee of the property and had parted with possession of the property to the Appellant on a numberinal licence basis.
The parties are closely related to each other being brothers in law since the Appellant Defendant was the husband of the Plaintiffs sister.
Whilst admitting that he had initially been a licencee of the Respondent, the Appellant pleaded in his Written Statement that on 15.05.1970 the Respondent had executed a Gift Deed in his favour, thereby making him the owner of the property.
The Plaintiff pleaded that it had been agreed between them that as and when required by the Plaintiff the Appellant would vacate the property.
However, despite the Plaintiffs repeated requests the Appellant did number accede thereto accordingly, the aforesaid suit came to be filed.
the Trial Court, where Respondents suit for mandatory injunction was decreed against the Appellant the First Appellate Court, which dismissed Appellants First Appeal and the High Court of Punjab Haryana, which dismissed the Appellants Second Appeal.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 Leave granted.
