SAHDEI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. SMT. KACHURA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid that the judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below hereinafter referred to as the Court of appeal cannot be sustained. It is evident that the Court of appeal has done many things which ought not to have been done and has omitted to do certain things which should have been done by it.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiffs appellants who shall be referred to in the judgement as the "plaintiff" against defendant respondents 1 and 2 for arrears of rent and ejectment. "The case of the plaintiff was that Smt. Kulsum Bibi and Amina Khatun were owners of the property in dispute which is the shape of an ahata. They let out the property to Smt. Kachura on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 6 and that the said property was sub-let by Smt. Kachura to Birbal Pandey defendant-respondent 2. Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be transferees of Smt. Kulsum Bibi and Smt. Amina Khatun. They have stated in their statement of claim that they served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring the defendants to vacate the property in dispute but they failed to do so.

(3.) Smt. Kachura remained absent inspite of sufficient service and did not contest the suit. On the other hand the suit was contested by defendant-respondent 2 Birbal Pandey. He denied of plaintiff's title to the property in dispute. He further stated that Smt. Kachura was not tenant of the property in dispute. He claimed that he was in possession over the property in dispute in his own right and he had acquired rights of sirdar after abolition of zamindari. Certain other pleas were also raised in the written statement of Birbal Pandey but they are not relevant for the disposal of this second appeal.