DROPADI DEVI Vs. RAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of this case are that Raja Virendra Vikram Singh of Payagpur district Bah raich who died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by the defendants-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was the owner of a grove which was his bhu-midhari property. On this grove a bi weekly cattle market known Akelwa Bazar was held. The persons who brought their cattle to be sold in that market had to pay some fee to the Raja. The Raja granted a lease of this right of collection of market dues to Smt. Dropadi, the de fendant-appellant, on 16-4-1956 for a period of two years which was to expire on 30th September, 1958. The lessee was to pay Rs. 11, 000 to the lessor for these two years' thefca. On 20-2- 1958 the Raja made a lease of that very property in favour of Ram Das, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for a period of three years beginning on 1-10-1958 and ending on 30-9-1961. The rent payable under this lease was Rs. 15, 000 for three years. The lease deed which was a bilateral document executed by the Raja and plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was registered on April 11, 1958. Sub sequently the Raja by his unilateral act purported to cancel this lease by another registered document dated 18-7-1958. The plaintiff Ram Das therefore filed a suit on 1-10-1958 alleging that he was the lessee of this property, namely, the right to collect market dues under the register ed lease dated 20-2-1958 for a period of three years beginning with 1-10-1958 and that Smt. Dropadi had no right to remain in possession of the property from 1-10-1958. He challenged the deed dated 18-7-1958 executed by the Raja on the ground that he was not competent to cancel the previous lease by this unilateral docu ment. The plaintiff therefore prayed for possession over the property. Plaintiff No. 1 joined with him two other persons, Ali Ataqie Beg .and Jwala Prasad, res pondents Nos. 2 and 3, as co-plaintiffs with the allegation that subsequently he had taken these persons also as partners with him for a period of one year in this business.

(2.) DURING the pendency of that suit a Receiver was appointed who took possession over the disputed property, namely, the right to collect market dues in respect of the bi-weekly market held on the Raja's grove. The Receiver realised these dues for the period for which the theka was given to the plaintiff and de posited that money in court. Obviously that money was to be disposed of by the court according to the result of the suit.

(3.) THE trial court found that the right to collect market dues was an im movable property which could be subject to transfer by way of lease. It was held that a valid lease of this property was made by the Raja in favour of plaintiff Ram Das by means of the registered document dated 18-2-1958 for a period of three years beginning with October 1, 1958. The Raja was not competent to revoke this lease by his unilateral act evidenced by the registered document dated 18-7-1958. With regard to the de fendant-appellant, it was found that the documents relied upon by her for the ex tension of the theka were fabricated documents which had been ante-timed and that no such extension was actually made before a registered lease was exe cuted in favour of the plaintiff Ram Das. In any case, the plaintiff Ram Das had no knowledge of any such extension of theka of the defendant-appellant. The plea taken by the defendant that the suit was barred by Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act on account of the part nership not being registered was also re pelled on the ground that at the time the Raja had contracted with Ram Das there was no partnership and Ram Das entered into this contract as' a principal and not on behalf of any partnership. As such Section 69 (2) had no application to the case. On these findings the learned Civil Judge passed a decree in favour of Ram Das alone and that decree was to the effect that the money deposited in court by the Receiver shall be paid to him.