SAFI DEVI Vs. MAHADEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed against five defendants. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the instant appeal. The defendant No. 5 Smt. Safi Devi, is the appellant before me. The plaintiff sought the recovery of possession of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad. A decree for mesne profits @ Re. 1/- per day with effect from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 50/- and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the same rate until the delivery of possession were also claimed. Further, the plaintiff claimed rent from the tenant defendant No. 4 Jagannath, @ Rs. 12/- per month from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 20/- and pendente lite and future rent.

(2.) THE brief facts are these : A sale deed was executed on June 10, 1968 by the defendant No. 1, Kartik Prasad acting for himself and as the father and guardian of his minor son, Bhanu, defendant No. 2 and by Atul Roy, defendant No. 3, in favour of the plaintiff, Mahadeo Prasad. THE sale deed was executed in respect of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad and for a stated consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. Due to the circumstances which have been stated in the plaint, the sale deed was finally registered on 25th June, 1968, on which date the defendant No. 1. Kartik Prasad, appeared before the Sub-Registrar and admitted the execution of the sale deed on behalf of himself and his minor son, Bhanu. He also admitted the receipt of the consideration of the sale deed.

(3.) THE trial court framed the necessary issues and after trial dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit.