WAZIRUNNISSA BEGAM Vs. S MOHAMED HANEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been brought before this Court by one Wazirunnissa Begum from a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, Madras dismissing a suit in ejectment filed by her against one Mohammed Haneef The claim of the petitioner, Wazirunnissa Begum, in the suit was that she was the owner of an item of vacant land bearing door No. 7 Yahya Alt First Street, Vellala Teynampet, Madras and that she had let it out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 25. She had issued a notice on 10th May, 1975, terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th May, 1975. Following the refusal by the respondent to vacate the land, she had instituted the suit in ejectment.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the suit on the score that the petitioner was not the full or exclusive owner of the suit land, but she held only a fractional share therein, the remaining shares being owned by the petitioner's relations. THE respondeat further claimed that barring the interest of the petitioner in the suit land, he himself had purchased the rest of the interest in the property from the other sharers. He accordingly contended that the petitioner was not entitled to file a suit in ejectment against him, all on her own, in the absence of the other co-sharers before the Court, and without adding them as parties to the suit.

(3.) ON the side of the respondent, however, reliance was placed on a partition decree, a certified copy of which was marked in evidence at the trial. The partition suit had been filed long prior to the present suit in ejectment. The petitioner, Waziruanissa Begum, was one of the parties to that suit, and the decree passed in that suit covered, among other items, the suit land bearing No. 7, Yahya Ali First Street, Vellala Teynampet, Madras. Under he terms of the partition decree, the petitioner was declared to be entitled only to an one-fourth share in the suit land, and the other shares were declared to belong to three other parties to the suit. Relying on this partition decree, the respondent sought to make good his plea that the suit filed by the petitioner seeking to eject him from the entire suit land did not lie. The trial Court accepted this plea as well-founded, and dismissed the suit on that score.