MURLIDHAR GOVARDHANDAS SHSH Vs. S V KUNNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the challenge is to the order made by the Joint Judge, Poona, holding that the Small Cause Court, Poona, had no jurisdiction to entertain that suit filed by the present petitioner against a tenant on the basis that he has 1/5th share in the property demised under the lease. By the impugned order, it has been found that such a suit was unentertainable by the Small Cause Court.

(2.) The undisputed facts are the one Govardhandas Shah held house property No. 1669, situate in Shukarwar Path, Poona, Defendants No. 1 Shri S. V. Kunnur is one of the tenants in that property. Govardhandas did not leaving behind him there sons, including plaintiff Murlidhar and his brothers Chandrakant and Rasiklal and two daughters Savitaben and Lalitaben. The widow of Government by name Miratbai also died in 1967 and after her death, the three brothers entered into some sort of family arrangement on September 7, 1967 as per Ex. 47. Acting upon this arrangement, the plaintiff set up a claim to the 1/5th share of the rent against the tenant Shri Kunnur. In the first round of appeal, the question as to the necessity of the plaintiff was decided and the court directed that they were necessary parties. One of the brothers Chandrakant under the agreement claimed full rent on the basis that all the three brothers had agree to give the house property to him and that a release deed or some conveyance deed was to e executed in his favour. As the present plaintiff would not act upon the terms, he initiated the suit for specific performance, being Special Civil Suit No. 150 of 1969. That suit was filed on June 12, 1969 to which the present plaintiff is a party.

(3.) In the present suit, which is failed in the Small Cause Court, the plaintiff sough to recover 1/5th share of the rent amount from the tenant without there being any agreement inter se or between the plaintiff and the tenant. the narrow question is, whether such a suit wad tenable before that Court?