DAYA RAM Vs. CHIRAUNJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal against the decree and judgment dated 5-12-1963 of the Civil Judge, Mainpuri in civil appeal No. 98 of 1960 confirming the decree and judgment dated 25-1-1960 of the Munsif Shikohabad in original suit No. 119 of 1958 by which the plaintiff's suit for possession of the property in suit was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff brought the suit on the allegations that the land in dispute belonged to Sri Ram Chandra Maharaj Birajman Mandir Ram Chandraji and Harbilas was its sarbarakar. The property was given to Chiranjilal defendant No. 2 (respondent) in 1951 by means of a lease deed dated 1-91951. He was allowed to make additions and alterations but he was not allowed to sub-let or transfer the property. He could, however, remove the material at the time of vacating the possession. Initially the lease was for one year only. It was alleged that Chiranjilal defendant No. 2 vacated the property and put defendant No. 1 in possession by executing a sale deed in his favour in January, 1956 which was against the conditions of the lease. Defendant No. 1 was in unlawful possession since then. He did not vacate the premises though he was asked to do so, hence the suit.

(3.) THE trial court framed issues on the pleadings of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that Harbilas was the sarbarakar. It further held that defendant No. 2 was a lessee and not a licencee and that the suit was not barred by estoppel and acquiescence. It also held that the suit was maintainable even without getting the sale deed cancelled. It also observed that the plea of S. 41 Transfer of Property Act was also taken half-heartedly but it was not proved that defendant No. 1 was a bona fide purchaser. The following two points only were argued, before the lower appellate court.