BAI MANUBEN Vs. BHIMABHAI NAGARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in dispute belongs to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. It consists of shop buildings on the ground floor and also of a first floor. This entire property had been leased to one Shivajirao sometime in the year, 1946, Shivajirao continued as a tenant of plaintiffs 1 and 2 till 12-7-1948, on which date he gave up possession of the property on the ground that he did not want it. Thereafter on, the same day the ground floor of the said property, which consisted of shop buildings, was leased to plaintiff No. 3; Plaintiff No. 3 got possession of the shop buildings on the same day and put his own lock on them. When Shivajirao, the original tenant of the entire properly, left the premises, it appears that some luggage of his brother Chimanrao had been kept in the shop buildings on the ground floor. On 27-7-1948 defendant No. 1, who is the wife of Chimanrao, and defendant No. 3, who is the other brother of Chimanrao, took the key from plaintiff No. 3 on representing to him that they would remove the luggage of Chimanrao. But it appears that after they took the key from plaintiff No. 3, they did not remove the luggage of Chimanrao, but illegally occupied the shop buildings of the ground floor. They then allowed defendant No. 4 to occupy them. Defendant No. 2 is defendant No. 1's son.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 3 filed a criminal complaint for trespass against the defendants for having illegally occupied the shop buildings, but they were acquitted on the ground that the dispute between them and him was of civil nature.

(3.) Thereafter on 17th of September, 1951 plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and their tenant plaintiff No. 3 filed suit No. 282 of 1951 for possession of the said property from the defendants, on the ground that they were trespassers and had wrongfully occupied it. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that they were not liable to be evicted. On 16-1-1953, a compromise was arrived at between the parties to the suit, and in terms of the compromise a decree was passed by the Court. The terms of the decree are :