MEWA LAL Vs. TARA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

(2.) THE suit was contested by the de fendant-appellants on various grounds. The first ground was that no title and interest passed to the plaintiff in the disputed pro perty by the sale-deeds. The second con tention was that the notice under Sec. 106 of the T. P. Act was invalid. The third contention was that a building stood on the land in dispute in 1950 which was an accom modation as provided under the U. P. Tem porary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, no suit for ejectment of the de fendant-appellants could be filed without complying with the provisions of section 3 of the Act. In this very connection, it was also contended that admittedly there was a building on this land which was constructed hi 1959 and when the Act came into force, it was an accommodation goverened by the Act. The other contention was that Smt. Nanhi Bibi had remarried another person after the death of Kanhaiyalal and that Raj Kumar Agrawal was the son born of the second husband of Smt. Nanhi Bibi and was not entitled to the property in dispute. All these contentions did not find favour with the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, decreed. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have filed this appeal.

(3.) "Actionable claim" has been de fined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Pro perty Act which reads as below:-