(1.) Appellant-plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sheopur Kalan, in Civil Appeal No. 38-A of 1979, dated 4th December, 1979, has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Sheopur Kalan that he was a tenant of respondent-defendant No. 1, of the tenanted two rooms, of which, one is a shop and the other a room, from 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. In the year 1972 respondent-defendant No. 1 on the pretext of keeping some building material in the room, obtained the possession of the said room with a promise to restore it to the appellant after his construction work came to an end. When, on demand, respondent-defendant No. 1 did not restitute the possession over the room, he filed a civil suit (being C.S. No. 171-A of 1972) in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, which was decreed in his favour. In consequence, respondent-defendant No. 1 mutually and without execution of the said decree, handed over the possession of the room to the appellant-plaintiff, but the defendant No. 1 respondent, subsequently, on 23.7.1974 sold the tenanted room to respondent-defendant No. 2 however, the vacant possession was not given to him, because it was in the possession of the appellant. On 25.7.1974, as respondent-defendant No. 2 tried to take forcible possession of the said room, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for the relief of permanent injunction in his favour restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises.
(3.) Respondent-defendant No. 1 simply denied the contents of the plaint, but respondent No. 2 defendant pleaded that on the date of the agreement to sell, i.e., 23.7.1975, he was given physical vacant possession of the property. He further averred that the suit room was not a promise given to the plaintiff by respondent-defendant No. 1. He also mentioned that in the year 1972, respondent-defendant No. 1 was in a demented mental state and the suit obtained by the plaintiff-appellant was a nullity because the suit was filed against respondent-defendant No. 1 without a next friend. In his written statement, the respondent No. 2 - defendant also averred that in the garb of the temporary injunction passed against him for maintaining the status quo, the appellant-plaintiff on 26.7.1974 tried to dispossess him unlawfully and on the date of passing the temporary injunction, it was he who was in possession of the property and is maintaining the status quo till now.