BABULAL Vs. PUKHRAM CHORDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 18/12/1997 - 22/12/1997 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (linked at Mungeli) (CG) in Civil Suit No.19-A/90 wherein the said court decreed the suit for eviction in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellants No.2 Anil Kumar from the premises in question situated at village Shankar Ward, Mungeli shown in map attached with plaint and consequential relief regarding payment of arrears of rent.

(2.) As per version of the appellants, the house in question was allotted to one Vedram in his share in family partition, but the trial Court recorded finding that the respondents being successors of one Suganchand are landlords and owners of he suit house. The trial Court has overlooked the registered partition deed (Ex.D1) dated 3-12-1954. The trial Court erred in recording finding that Vedram is not the real owner of the suit house. The said Sugamchand acquired property through a sale deed executed by Prem Singh and Ratan Singh in his favour, but the said Prem Singh and Ratan Singh had no title to the property, therefore, execution of sale deed did not bind Vedram and his heirs. The trial Court overlooked the documentary evidence consisting of entry in the Municipal records in the name of Vedram and demand of payment of property tax against him. These documents along with partition deed and the oral evidence adduced by appellants conclusively established that Vedram is the real owner of the property. It is further case of the appellants that any mortgage executed by Prem Singh in favour of Ambika Soni did not bind on Vedram because after partition Prem Singh could not be Karta of the family of which Vedram was a member. The sale in favour of Sugamchand by persons who had no tittle to the property did not transfer any title in favour of Sugamchand. Partition deed dated 7-12-1954 is presumed to be correct as the same is 30 years old document. The said property did not fall in the shares of Prem Singh and Ratan Singh. There is no evidence of existence of any ground under Section 12 (1) of the MP/CG Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Denial of alleged tittle of the respondents did not prove any ground for ejectment under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 1961, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be reversed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per Ex.P/14 and P/11 Lakshman Das was tenant in the house in question and presently occupied by successors of Lakshman Das. There is one partition deed (Ex.D/1) in which property is partitioned between share holders. There is no document that successor of Lakshman is in occupation as tenant of Vedram. From the record, it is established that they are tenants of Suganchand. Lakshman and his successor did not enter into witness box to prove that they are the tenants of Vedram, therefore, their tenancy is not established to that of Vedram.