VINAYAKAPPA Vs. DULICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dulichand Hariram Murarka purported to purchase a four storeyed house No.19 in Municipal Ward No. 14 and Nazul sheet No.26-C, Plot No. 71/1 Malipura, Akola from Rameshwarappa, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- by a registered sale deed dt. 4-3-1964. The ground floor of the building consisted of three rooms out of which two rooms in the rear continued to remain with Vinayakappa the brother of the Vendor Rameshwarappa. The vendee Dulichand claimed that Vinayakappa was inducted into the premises as a tenant, that the rent was Rs. 50/- plus Rs. 5/- by way of electric charges per month and that Vinayakappa continued to pay the rent up to 3rd January 1967. Dulichand claims to have terminated the tenancy of Vinayakappa by notice dt. 29th October 1968, but as the latter did not comply, Dulichand filed Regular Civil Suit No. 8/69 in the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, for eviction and possession. In the trial Court Vinayakappa resisted the suit denying the title of the plaintiff. According to him, he had borrowed Rs. 6,500/- from Dulichand and it was agreed that he would return the loan of Rs. 6,500/- and another promised one of Rs. 3,500/- to be advanced in future in a period of 5 years. Though the property was an ancestral property in which all the brothers and the mother had shares, it was ostensibly conveyed to the plaintiff after executing a Tabe Yadi in favour of Rameshwarappa, so as to make a show of clothing him with title. Defendant Vinayakappa denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with Dulichand and payment of any rent for the rooms.

(2.) The lower Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree having been dismissed, the defendant Vinayakappa has come up to this Court.

(3.) It is a common ground that the defendant is residing in two rooms on the ground floor all these years even though the entire house has been sold by his brother to the plaintiff. As the house was ancestral property of the family, it would not be unrealistic to conclude that the family was residing therein all these years prior to the sale and that the defendant Vinayakappa continued to occupy two rooms on the ground floor all these years even after the sale.