DULARI DEVI Vs. RAJENDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected matters, one is a first appeal No. 326 of 1951 and the other is a first appeal from order No, 224 of 1951. Since both arise out of the same matter they were connected in the court below and the appeals against the orders have also been connected.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Sheo Shankar Lal plaintiff in suit No. 41 of 1949, had three wives. Out of his union with the second wife a daughter was born. She was Smt. Bitano. She was married to Rajendra Prakash, defendant No. 1 in suit No. 41 of 1949. His sons Ramesh Chandra, Suresh Chandra and Mahesh Chandra are defendants Nos. 2 to 4. THE dispute relates to a house situate in Mohalla Gudri Janwaran alias Ghamandi Mathia in the city of Farrukhabad. THE case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he had purchased this house on 2-9-1919 from his brother-in-law. After the purchase, he obtained permission from the Municipal Board, Farrukhabad and made constructions. Six months after the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff had invested a considerable amount, and he started living in the house. He lived there for some time. About 8 or 9 years ago he had purchased another house to which he shifted. Smt. Bitano, the elder daughter of the plaintiff, was married to defendant No. 1 Rajendra Prakash. Since he was in trouble about the house, the plaintiff allowed Rajendra Prakash to occupy the house in dispute and his daughter and son-in-law continued to five in it. THEy were living with) the permission of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff had become weak on account of illness for two years and his mental as well as physical condition had deteriorated. He wanted to make arrangement for the disposal of this house. THErefore, he wanted defendant No. 1 to vacate the house, but he refused and put up the plea that the house belonged to his sons, defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 1 further made a false accusation against the plaintiff that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000/- from defendant No. 1 which had not been paid. Since the defendant did not vacate the house, hence the suit. This suit was filed on 27-7-49.

(3.) THE defence of Rajendra Prakash in the suit, in which he was the defendant, was that the house did not belong to Sheo Shankar Lal, but it had been purchased benami in his name, because it was purchased from the brother-in-law of Sheo Shankar Lal, who may have hesitated to transfer ill to Rajendra Prakash, who was the son-in-law of Sheo Shankar Lal. It was purchased with the Money contributed by Rajendra Prakash and it was he who had made the constructions and had all along been paying the house and water taxes. THE house had been given by him to his sons and there was also a formal deed of gift by Sheo Shankar Lal in favour of his sons. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was advanced by Rajendra Prakash to his father-in-law which had not been paid and he laid a claim to that amount also.