DEBI PRASAD Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant' s appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff' s case is that plaintiff No. 1. Lachhman Singh and his sons Ramesh Chandra and Suresh Chandra form a joint Hindu family which is governed by a Mitakshara Law and the plaintiff No. 1 was the manager of the family. According to the plaintiffs they filed a suit for the partition of the joint family ancestral property including house No. 491, Faithfulganj Kanpur, Cantt. impleading defendants Nos. 4 to 6 namely Badri Prasad, Chhedi Lal and Babu lal sons of Hulasi as defendants. The suit had to be filed against defendants Nos. 4 to 6 as they were in actual possession of the joint family property including house No. 491, Faithfulganj, Kanpur, Cantonment and were benefited from the rental income derived therefrom. The suit was decreed and the plaintiffs obtained formal possession through court on 11-12- 1962. It was stated in the plaint that the half share in house No. 491, Faithfulganj, Kanpur, Cantonment, fell to the share of the plaintiffs. In this house defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were tenants at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. It is further stated that after the decree the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to continue as tenants and pay monthly rent to the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE plaintiffs further pleaded that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 colluded with defendant No. 3 who was their neighbour and friend, and despite service of notice on them to pay rent refused to pay the same and they continued being tenants of the plaintiffs.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3, Devi Prasad who is the appellant in this appeal, contested the suit. It was pleaded by him that the plaintiff and the answering defendants descend from a common ancestor, Gulal, A pedigree was set up. It was stated that the father of the plaintiffs Sri Puran had died, when Lachhman Singh had not been born and Hulasi the brother of Puran had brought up Lachhman Singh and incurred expenses for his maintenance and education. It was stated that Hulasi was in straightened circumstances and required money for the basic necessities of the family and had incurred debts.