RAMKISHANDAS Vs. KALICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiffs' Second appeal whose suit for ejectment has been dismissed by both the lower Courts, in so far as it related to a portion of the rented premises occupied by Respondent No. 2 Bhura, a sub -tenant of Respondent No. 1 Kailcharan the principal tenant.

(2.) THE suit was filed by Ramkishandas, Ghanshyamdas and Shyamsunderdas against Kalicharan alleging that the latter had obtained the house in dispute on rent from them, that he did not pay any rent after the 27th of November, 1951 and had kept a sub -tenant in the house without the Plaintiffs' consent. It was also alleged that Kalicharan did not pay the arrears of rent inspite of a formal demand. On 28 -10 -1953 a compromise deed was put up, according to which Kalicharan agreed to pay rent amounting to Rs. 115 -7 -0 as arrears of rent and to give vacant possession of the house in question by the 1st of December, 1933. The compromise was verified by the Court, but no decree was then passed on its basis. On 2 -12 -1953 Respondent No. 2 Bhura applied to the Court stating that he had been occupying a portion of the house as a tenant holding from the Plaintiffs for the last 12 years, that the suit between the Plaintiffs and Kalicharan was collusive in nature and that Kalicharan had, therefore, admitted the Plaintiffs' claim in its entirety. Kalicharan bad at first filed a suit for ejectment against Bhura; but it was held that Bhura was the tenant of the present Plaintiffs and Kalicharan's suit was, therefore, dismissed. Thereafter the present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs in collusion with the Defendant Kalicharan in order to secure Bhura's eviction. Bhura, therefore, pleaded that he should be joined as a party to the suit The trial Court allowed his prayer, with the result that Bhura was joined as a Defendant in the case. The Plaintiffs amended their plaint and Kalicharan once again put up a written statement it admitting the Plaintiffs' claim. Kalicharan further pleaded that he had sub -let to Bhura on a monthly rent of Rs 2 -8 -0 one half portion of the house leased out to him by the Plaintiffs. Bhura pleaded that the deed by which the lease in favour of Kalicharan was created has been deliberately suppressed by the Plaintiffs.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal Shyamsunderdas died on 30 - 0 1959. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court by the Respondent No. 2, Bhura in his application dated 29 -11 -1960. The Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ramkishandas and Ghanshyamdas, have by their application dated 20 -12 -1960 stated on solemn affirmation that the property in dispute was the joint amily property of all the Appellants who were members of a joint Hindu family of which Ramkishandas was and still is the 'Karta'. The said Appellants, therefore, contend that they have a right to prosecute the appeal without bringing on record the heirs of the deceased Shamsunderdas. A counter -affidavit has been filed by Bhura stating that Ramkishandas and Shyamsunderdas were partners of the firm Ganesh Ram Gopal situate at Shivpuri and that they do not constitute a joint Hindu family. The Respondent No. 2 Bhura, therefore, contends that the cause of action does not survive solely to Appellants Ramkishandas and Ghanshyamdas.