VIDYA VATI Vs. DEVI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate litigation where a widow has been kept out of her monies for over six years by reason of wrong application of law by the courts. Much of the travail of the widow could have been avoided if the courts had taken a common sense view of the law instead of adopting a rather technical and unimaginative approach. The facts giving rise to this litigation are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) The respondent is the owner of a residential quarter bearing No. 1/20 situate at Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi. He wanted a loan for the purpose of repaying an earlier debt and he, therefore, approached the appellant and as a result of negotiations between them, an agreement dated 27 th September, 1967 was entered into between the parties. This agreement recited that a sum of Rs. 7500/- was lent and advanced by the appellant to the respondent and it provided that in lieu of interest on this amount of Rs. 7500/-, the respondent would give to the appellant a portion of his residential quarter (hereinafter referred to as the premises) for temporary residence. The agreement went on to say, and we are setting out the precise terms of the agreement since they are material for the decision of the controversy between the parties:

(3.) The period of the agreement expired on 27th September, 1969 and according to the terms of the agreement, the respondent could thereafter repay the loan of Rupees 7500/- to the appellant and claim back possession of the premises from her. The case of the respondent was that he addressed a notice dated 26th August, 1969 to the appellant and tendered a sum of Rs. 7500/- to her in repayment of the loan, but the appellant refused to accept the same. The respondent also addressed another notice dated 4th May, 1970 to the appellant but this notice also had no effect on her. The respondent thereupon filed Suit No. 123 of 1973 in the Court of Sub-judge, 1st Class, Delhi seeking to recover possession of the premises from the appellant. The appellant did not appear to contest the suit and it was decreed ex parte by a judgment dated 22nd May 1973. The learned Sub-Judge passed a decree for possession of the premises in favour of the respondent but added the following rider: