RAM BILAS Vs. JAGAT NARAIN SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the High court dated 19/03/1974 in Second Appeal No. 370 of 1971 and the order dated 18/03/1976, rejecting the review application against the main order. The High court allowed the defendant's second appeal by the main order, after the defendant had failed in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court.

(2.) The suit property is a house in Faizabad. The defendant-respondent, now substituted by his LRs, was a tenant in the suit house when the house was purchased by the appellants on 8/02/1968 for a sum of Rs. 3,750. 00, the sale deed being executed by Smt Chinta Devi, wife of Ram Shanker Lal, and their children. Lava Shanker and Smt Shail Bala. The house belonged originally to ramjas Lal, father of Ram Shanker Lal who died in 1944. The whereabouts of ram Shanker Lal were unknown and he was not heard by even his wife and children for a long time prior to execution of the sale deed in appellant's favour on 08/02/1968. The exact date from which Ram Shanker Lal was not heard of or seen by any of his close relations is not clear. However, in the sale deed itself, it was mentioned by his wife and children that the said Ram Shanker lal had not been heard of or seen by any one of them for more than seven years prior to the date of execution of that sale deed. It may also be mentioned that the statement of the defendant, Jagat Narain, forming part of the record, made before the Nazul Officer, Faizabad on 8/07/1958 contains his admission that his maternal uncle Ramjas Lal had died 15 years earlier and the whereabouts of his son. Ram Shanker Lal were not known from the lifetime of his father, and that Ram Shanker Lal had most probably died. This would indicate that even according to the defendant's statement recorded in the year 1958, Ram Shanker lal was presumed to have been dead at that time.

(3.) The appellant after purchasing the suit house in the above manner instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant-respondent also claiming therein arrears of rent in view of the fact that the defendant had admittedly not paid any rent to him. The defendant contested the suit on a vague plea. The defendant contended that a loan of Rs. 1,500. 00 was taken by Ramjas Lal from him which he did not repay and after the death of Ramjas Lal, his son Ram Shanker Lal had agreed that in lieu of the loan the defendant could obtain a sale deed. The defendant further pleaded that to honour that statement, the defendant was alsogiven possession. It is sufficient to say that the pleading of the defendant did not amount to setting up acquisition of title by him in any manner prescribed by law.