ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are these, According to the plaintiff the shop in dispute initially belonged to one Madar Baksh, who expired in 1901. His brothers Idu and Jumman inherited his property in equal shares. THE father of defendant No. 1 took that shop on rent from those persons, Idu died somewhere in the year 1931. Out of his share in the shop 1 anna share was inherited by his widow Smt. Baqridan, 3 annas by his brother Jumman, and 4 annas by his daughter Smt. Ramzani. Thus according to the plaintiff Jumman's share in the shop became 11/16. Jumman was subsequently incapacitated and lost his power of understanding. THE rent of the shop was, therefore, realised by defendant No. 3 and other relations of Jumman. Jumman died in the year 1942 survived by the plaintiff. Smt. Ramzani died in 1948, and Smt. Baqridan died in 1951. THEy were succeeded by defendants 3 to 5. On the death of Sarabjit his son defendant No. 1 became the tenant of the shop. When he failed to pay rent of the shop for the Period commencing 1-1-1966 a suit was filed. Defendant No. 1 deposited the rent under S. 7-C (2) of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act in Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967. THE plaintiff then filed a suit claiming 11/16th share in the rent so deposited under S. 7-C of the Act.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. THE contesting defendant No. 2 pleaded that the said shop was originally owned by Ramzan Ali, Mohd. Shafi, Ghulam Nabi alias Lallan who sold the same to defendant No. 2 on 28-1-1966 and since then the defendant had been in possession of the said shop as owner thereof. He further alleged that there had been a family settlement between Jumman, Dina, Badlu, Ramzani and Baqridan and the terms whereof were recorded in a deed dated 24-7-1931 registered on 7-10-1931. In pursuance of that family settlement Dina and Badlu became the owners of the shop and after the demise of Dina and Badlu Ramzan Ali, Mohd. Shafi and Ghulam Nabi alias Lallan became owners of the shop. THEy subsequently sold the said shop to defendant No. 2. THE contesting defendant No. 2 therefore, pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any share in the amount of rent deposited under Section 7-C of the Act.

(3.) IT seems that before the appellate court below only one point was pressed, namely that the alleged family settlement set up by defendant No. 2 in his pleadings had not been proved in accordance with law. IT was contended that the original deed of family Settlement had not been filed, and as its loss had not been proved the defendant No. 2 was not entitled to lead secondary evidence with regard to it. The submission therefore, was that the trial court had erred in placing reliance on the secondary evidence and as there was no valid proof of the family settlement, it could not be held that defendant No. 2 had become absolute owner of the said shop inasmuch as the transferees from whom he had purchased the property were not proved to be the sole owners. This contention did not find favour with the trial court.