BASANTILAL Vs. RAMCHARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the Plaintiff Ramcharan brought a suit for a declaration of his title to a portion of a house and possession thereof, against Basantilal, and Mst. Rajo and Budhsen legal representatives of one Gundharilal, alleging that he was the owner of the property in dispute and had rented out the same to Gundharilal on 24 -7 -1926; that Gundharilal paid rent to him until 10 -3 -1938; that for sometime Gundharilal himself kept his own shop in the house but later on allowed his cousin Basantilal to locate his shop there, continuing, however, to pay rent to the Plaintiff until 10 -3 -1938 and that subsequently when Gundharilal stopped paying rent he sued in 1942 (Civil Original Suit No. 122 of 98 in the Court of District Sub -Judge, Bhind) Gundharilal and Basantilal for rent and possession of the property; that his claim against Gundharilal was decreed but it was dismissed as against Basantilal on the ground that Basantilal was not his tenant.

(2.) BEFORE me Mr. Shivdayal learned Counsel for the Appellant raised three points. First that the Plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the property; secondly that in view of the decision in the previous suit namely, Civil Suit No. 122 of 98, the present suit was barred; and thirdly the Plaintiff's suit was not within time. In my opinion there is no force in any of these contentions. Taking first the question of the Plaintiff's title to the property, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the Plaintiff purchased a house, a portion of which is now in dispute from Radhelal and Guru Prasad by a registered sale deed on 7 -12 -1915 and that thereafter die Plaintiff dealt with the property as his own, realising rent from various persons including Gundharilal who had taken on rent different portions of the house.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by time. If was argued that the Plaintiff's suit being one for ejectment, he is not entitled to succeed unless besides proving title, he shows in addition that he was in possession of the property within twelve years of the suit which was filed on 16 -1 -1950 and that the Plaintiff has failed to prove this.