LAWS(MPH)-1961-7-4

KUNWARLAL DARYAVSINGH Vs. SURAJMAL MAKHANLAL

Decided On July 14, 1961
KUNWARLAL DARYAVSINGH Appellant
V/S
SURAJMAL MAKHANLAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 (father and son ). The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that Tulsiram defendant No. 2 was a minor and that it was he who had taken the house on rent, and because a minor was not competent to contract, no rent was realisable. Both the courts below upheld the contention and dismissed the suit. This is now a revision by the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant that Tulsiram defendant was a minor at the time when he took the house on rent. But it is contended that on 25-10-52, (sic) defendant No. 1 (father of defendant No. 2)made the following entry in the Bahi-Khata of the plaintiff and signed it: rk- 25and1and54 ls edku fdjk;k izfrekl #- 15 ekgokj ls pkywa twuk [kkrk ikuk 30 ls yk;k [kkrk oknha c n% ljtweya

(3.) FROM the above entry in the Khata, it is evident that Surajmal, whatever might have been the previous transaction in this case, from 25-1-54 took the house on rent on Rs. 15/- per month. The signature under this entry is admitted by surajmal and the plaintiff has also proved it. In the circumstances, there can be no doubt that Surajmal is liable to pay rent from 25-1-54, and, the present suit in the main is for the recovery of rent from that date. According to the account produced by the plaintiff, the amount due from 25-1-54 is Rs. 168/ -.