LAWS(MPH)-2011-9-112

SURESH KUMAR KESHWANI Vs. KISHAN LAL VISHWAKARMA

Decided On September 12, 2011
Suresh Kumar Keshwani and Ors. Appellant
V/S
Kishan Lal Vishwakarma and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006 passed by Fifteenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in C.S. No. 8-A/2006.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that respondent No. 1 Kishan Lal Vishwakarma filed a suit for declaration, partition and possession before the trial Court in respect of house Nos. 183, 184 and 185 situated at Cherital, Damohnaka, Jabalpur. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 pleaded that he and Ghanshyam Vishwakarma (since deceased) (father of respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5) were real brother, they have joint Hindu family property/house situated at Cherital, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur bearing Nos. 183, 184 and 185. It was further pleaded that in the year 1983 Ghanshyam ousted the plaintiff from the aforesaid property and did not allow him to collect the rent. House No. 184 was given on rent to appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 Suresh Keshwani, who at that time was running a hotel in the name and style of 'Anand Hotel'. It was further pleaded that Suresh Keshwani also refused to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Ghanshyam Vishwakarma used tricks and managed the property not to be recorded in the name of plaintiff Kishan Lal Vishwakarma.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, plaintiff was forced to file Civil Suit No. 62-A/83 for declaration of his rights in the Court of Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, which was decreed on 29.2.1988 and right of plaintiff Kishanlal was declared. But defendant Ghanshyam filed an appeal F.A. No. 745/88 against the aforesaid judgment and decree, which was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.1.1993. In this way the judgment and decree dated 29.2.1988 passed by the Fifth Additional Judge became final and effective. It was further pleaded that on the basis of aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to ask for half of rent of Anand Hotel, which is situated at House No. 183. It was further pleaded that plaintiff sent a demand notice to Suresh Kumar and demanded the rent for the period of 3 years.