RANBIR SINGH Vs. ASHARFI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts leading to this appeal are that Maharaja Rana Udaibhan Singhji of the erstwhile State of Dholpur died in the year 1954 leaving behind him his widow Smt Malvender Kaur and daughter Smt Urmila Devi. Late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh had no natural male child and according to the appellant the late Maharaja Udaibhan had great attachment with Shri Hemant Singh, the son of his only daughter and during his lifetime had expressed his wish to adopt Shri Hemant Singh as a son to him and had advised his widow accordingly giving her the authority to adopt Shri Hemant Singh as his son. Consequently, Shri Hemant Singh (s/o Smt Urmila Devi. daughter of late Maharaja Rana Udaibhan Singh) was adopted by Smt Malvender Kaur according to the wishes of her late husband vide Deed of Adoption dated 5/11/1954. Further case of the appellant is that a high-power committee was constituted to examine the contentions of various claimants for succession to the gaddi of Dholpur. The said committee consisting of the then chief justice of Rajasthan High court, Maharaja of Bharatpur and Maharaja of Doongarpur recommended the name of Shri Hemant Singh as a ruler of the erstwhile State of Dholpur. The government of India accepted the recommendation of the said committee and by letter dated 13/14/12/1956 recognised Shri Hemant Singh the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh as successor to the gaddi of Dholpur with effect from 22/10/1954. The government of India by another letter dated 13/12/19566 addressed to Smt Malvender Kaur stating that she has been appointed as the new ruler's adoptive mother to be the natural and legal guardian Of Shri Hemant Singh who was then minor with instructions to take care of his interest in every way.

(2.) The property in dispute in the present appeal was given on rent to the respondent by Smt Malvender Kaur on a monthly rent of Rs. 4. 00 which was inherited by Shri Hemant Singh being the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh. The appellant purchased certain property including the property in dispute in this appeal from Shri Hemant Singh by a registered sale deed dated 10/10/1972. On such sale being made the rent note executedby the respondent in favour of Smt Malvender Kaur was handed over to the appellant by the landlord Shri Hemant Singh. According to the appellant after he purchased the suit property he immediately intimated the same to the respondent who on demand of enhancement of rent, agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 40. 00 per month of the suit premises. The respondent had paid rent to him for the months of November and December 1972 but did not pay any rent thereafter. The appellant, therefore, served a notice dated 6/1/1976 to the respondent terminating the tenancy and demanded vacant possession of the suit premises, specifically mentioning that Hemant Singh was the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh of Dholpur. The respondent in his reply dated 30/1/1976 did not dispute the factum of adoption of Shri Hemant Singh but denied the title of the appellant as also any privity of contract of tenancy with him.

(3.) The appellant filed suit for eviction against the respondent on the grounds of denial of title, bona fide necessity of the premises in suit, default in payment of rent and material alterations. The respondent contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the grounds of eviction alleged by the appellant. The respondent took the stand that he was the tenant of Smt Malvender Kaur and that Shri Hemant Singh was not the legally constituted successor to late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh and as Shri Hemant Singh was the son of the daughter of Maharaja Udaibhan Singh, he inherited no interest in the property. The respondent took the stand that on the death of Shri Udaibhan Singh, his widow Smt Malvender Kaur became successor. He also denied attornment of tenancy by oral notice or that he agreed to pay rent at Rs. 40. 00 per month to the appellant.