PANNALAL Vs. ABDUL WAHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal against whom a suit for declaration and possession has been decreed by both the lower Courts.

(2.) JIWANLAL , Motilal and Shankarlal jointly owned the house in dispute which they mortgaged with possession on 18 -7 -1930 with one Ballabhdas. The mortgagors, however, continued to remain in possession of the mortgaged property in their capacity as tenants of the mortgagee. One Nathmal having obtained a money -decree against Jiwanlal and his two brothers, in execution of which he got the house in dispute auctioned, the equity of redemption in respect of the said house was purchased by one Malojirao on 13 -10 -1943. Thereafter Malojirao's son Anandrao on 13 -12 -1943 sold the house during the life time of his father, to Abdul Wahid. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed on 26 -3 -1954 against Pannalal and Shankarlal. It was alleged by the plaintiff that on purchase by Malojirao of the equity of redemption in respect of the suit house the defendants attorned to him. It was further alleged that on 1 -2 -1941 a rent -note was executed by Motilal and Shankarlal in favour of Malojirao. Abdul Wahid further allege that the defendants paid rent to him till March, 1949. They, however, disclaimed the plaintiff's title to the suit property in 1949 when the plaintiff wanted to re -build certain portions of the house. The defendants in the present suit sued Abdul Wahid for an injunction restraining him from demolishing certain portions of this house. The suit was, however; dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs in that suit could not prove their title. Thereafter Abdul Wahid brought the present suit for declaration and possession.

(3.) THE Courts below have concurrently held that the house in suit was sold by Anandrao to the plaintiff and that prior to the sale Motilal and Shankarlal had on 1 -2 -1941 executed a rent -note (Ex. P. 1) in favour of Malojirao. Lastly the Courts below relying on Anandrao's statement held that the defendants continued to pay rent to him till 1949 when they for the first time denied the plaintiff's title. It, therefore, held that the plaintiff's suit was not barred by limitation.