KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. HAJI MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hafiz Zahir-ud-din, Haji Mohamed Hasham and Mst. Khatun Mahshar instituted a suit against nine defendants, including Shri Krishan Gopal (defendant No. 6 and appellant in this Court) for the recovery of a sum of Rs 433 50 and ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from a plot of land. The grounds on which the suit was baled were that Shri Nand Lal deceased, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 to 6 had taken the vacant plot of land en lease from the plaintiffs and defendants Nos 7 to 9 and had also executed a rent note in their favour. The lease was taken from Mohamed Hasham, plaintiff No. 2, for a cycle-stand and rent was being paid to Mohamed Hasham in his capacity as the Manager on behalf of all the landlords. Shri Nand Lal died in March, 1959, learing behind defendants Nos. 1 to 6 as his legal heirs and representatives After Nand Lal's death, Krishan Gopal was running the cycle-stand and paid rent to Mohamed Hasham under the terms of the rent-deed at the rate of Rs. 25.50 per mensem, and indeed paid the rent till 31st December, 1960. As a result of private partition of the said land between the owners in February, 1958, a part of the suit land fell to the share of plaintiff No. 1. In 1961, pursuant to further private partition amongst the owners, the other portion of the plot fell to the share of Mohamed Hasham and Mst. Khatun Mashar. On these averments, damages were claimed. It is unnecessary to go into further details for the purposes of the present appeal. Suffice It to say that on the trial of various issues framed, the trial Court on 17th August, 1963 passed a decree for ejectment of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from the property in suit and also made a decree for Rs. 433.50 nP. against them.

(2.) H. Mohd. Muslim, defendant No. 8 in the trial Court, took the matter on appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, in which it was prayed that the judgment and decree of the trial Court be set aside and, to quote the exact words, "either the decree for ejectment and recovery of rent may be passed in favour of the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and No. 10 and 11 or the suit of the plaintiff respondents may be dismissed with costs " Respondents-Nos. 1 to 3 in the lower Appellate Court, it may be pointed out, were the three plaintiffs and respondents Nos. 10 and 11 were Hafiz Mohd. Mian and H. Mohd. Sami, defendants Nos. 7 to 9 respectively in the trial Court. It is obvious from this that the appeal was not directed against Krishan Gopal, defendant in the trial Court and respondent in the lower Appellate Court (appellant before me). Krishan Gopal presented cross-objections in the lower Appellate Court on 21st December, 1963, which were directed against the plaintiffs who were also co-respondents along with Krishan Gopal in the lower Appellate Court, it being added that he had been served with a notice of the appeal on 2nd December, 1963.

(3.) An objection was raised in the lower Appellate Court that these cross-objections were incompetent and in view of the decisions reported as Jan Mohammad v. P. N. Razdon, which followed an earlier decision of the Lahore High Court in Sant Ram v. Kidar Nath, and a decision of the Punjab High Court given in 1965, this objection was upheld as per order dated 11th October, 1965. The disposal of the appeal was, however adjourned on the ground that the minors were to be properly represented. The appeal of H Mohd. Muslim (Regular Civil Appeal 126 of 1965) was finally dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 1985 that decree clearly shows that the appeal had been heard on 1st December, 1965, but the judgment was announced on 6th December, 1965, it having apparently been reserved on 1st December, 1965.