LAWS(MPH)-1960-3-17

TIKAMCHAND BADRILAL Vs. BABUBHAI CHANDULAL

Decided On March 03, 1960
Tikamchand Badrilal Appellant
V/S
BABUBHAI CHANDULAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's appeal and is directed against the order refusing to record a compromise particularly in respect of the relief of ejectment.

(2.) WHILE the appeal was still pending the Plaintiff sold the house in question to one Babubhai by means of a registered deed of sale. It was provided under the terms of the sale deed that Sardar Virendrasingh would be entitled to arrears of rent awarded under the decree as also to mesne profits upto the date of sale i.e. 10 -2 -1958. A couple of months subsequent to the sale an application was submitted by Babubhai in the pending appeal for substitution of his name in place of Sardar Virendrasingh as the Respondent. Notice of this application was issued to the Plaintiff as well as to the Defendant Sardar Virendrasingh submitted a reply on 20 -4 -58 admitting the fact of sale and not opposing Babubhai's application for the substitution of his name. On 19 -1 -1959 an adjustment was arrived at between Sardar Virendrasingh and the Defendant the terms of which are the subject -matter of controversy between the parties and falls to be considered in this appeal.

(3.) AS regards the second contention it was conceded before me by the Learned Counsel for Sardar Virendrasingh as well as for Babubhai that they would have no objection for direction to record the compromise in respect of the relief arrears of rent and mesne profits upto 10 -2 -1958 and to entire satisfaction of the decree of the trial Court to that extent. Both the Learned Counsel however do not accept the contention of the Appellant that Sardar Virendrasingh did in fact compromise the claim even in respect of the relief of ejectment or that he could do so on 19 -1 -1959 when he had already parted with his title to and consequently right of possession in respect of the house in question, only a portion of which is in the occupation of the Appellant. They challenge the correctness of the interpretation which is sought to be placed upon the terms of the compromise -agreement relied upon by the Appellant.