SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. MOHAMMAD SHARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for eviction of the appellant from a house after holding him to be the respondents tenant. The appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs and their case that he has been in possession of the property as their tenant. The trial Court accepted the plaintiffs' case and passed a decree in their favour, which was set aside on appeal by the first appellate Court. The decision was reversed by the High Court in second appeal by the impugned judgment.

(2.) Admittedly the house which was in the possession of the defendant's father Misri Lal as a tenant belonged to one Smt. Raj Rani who sold the same on 11-8-1952 to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Navinchand Dalchand. In 1959 a suit for his eviction was filed by Navinchand, which was resisted on the ground that Smt. Raj Rani had earlier transferred the house to a trust and she, therefore, could not later convey any title to Navinchand. The trial Court rejected the defence and passed a decree against which Misri Lal filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the parties resolved their dispute amicably. Misri Lal accepted the title of Navinchand and a deed, Ext. P-20, creating a fresh lease in favour of Misri Lal under Navinchand as lessor, was executed with effect from 1-12-1962. The appeal was disposed of by recording this fact and stating further that the arrears of rent had been paid off. The compromise petition and the decree have been marked in the present suit as Ext. P-21 and Ext. P-22. Misri Lal continued to occupy the house till he died in 1972 leaving behind his son, the present appellant, as his heir and legal representative. Navinchand sold the suit property to the plaintiff-respondents on 4-1-1973, who sent a notice to the appellant on 14-3-1973. Since the appellant refused to recognise them as owners of the house, another notice terminating the tenancy was served in January 1974 and the present suit was filed in June of the same year.

(3.) The appellant resisted the claim in the plaint on the same old plea which his father Misri Lal had unsuccessfully taken in the earlier suit, namely, that Smt. Raj Rani having transferred the disputed house to a trust in 1936 was not competent to re-transfer it to Navinchand Dalchand, the vendor of the plaintiffs-respondents. The trial Court disbelieved the defence version holding that although Smt. Raj Rani had executed a trust deed in 1936, but the same was not acted upon and the trust does not appear to have come into existence. On appeal the first appellate Court reversed the finding and further held that the defendant could not be estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiffs.