DWARKADAS HIRALAL LAHOTI Vs. KAZI MUBAROZUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of concurrent findings and judgments of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Additional District Judge, Nanded. By the impugned judgment, rendered in First Appeal (R.C.A.No.255/1982) the Additional District Judge confirmed judgment of the trial Court, whereby the suit for recovery of possession filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

(2.) It is common ground that Respondent No.1/defendant No.l is owner of a plot No.13, admeasuring 150 ft. south-north in length by 70 ft. east-west in breadth. Admittedly, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1952 he leased out the said plot to the deceased Appellant/Plaintiff and Respondent No.4 - Adinath. It was a joint lease created for benefit of both the lessees. They were inducted in possession of the plot. They had put up a barbed wire fencing around boundaries of the plot. The agreed rent (Nuzul) was Rs.10/- p.a. It was permanent lease without any particular tenure fixed. The Respondent No.l was entitled to recover the rent and on failure to pay the same, to recover the possession in accordance with law.

(3.) The deceased appellant filed suit (R.C.S.No.288/1981) for recovery of possession of the plot No.13. His case was that he and the defendant No.4 - Adinath were in joint possession of plot No.13 as lessees. They paid amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred) as Nazrana (gift) to the defendant No.l at the relevant time. The defendant No.l, however, leased out eastern half portion of the said plot to the defendant Nos.2 and 3. That lease agreement is illegal. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 illegally occupied eastern half portion of the plot No.13 in or about March 1981. The defendant No.4 has made collusion with the other defendants. Consequently, he is entitled to recover possession of the entire plot No.13 inasmuch as his tenancy rights are subsisting.