SHIVNARAYAN Vs. DAULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant and is directed against the judgement and decree dt. 13-2-1975, passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil Appeal No. 19-B of 1973 confirming the judgement and decree dated 8-3-1973 passed by the Civil Judge Class, I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 73-B of 1971, decreeing the respondent's suit for declaration that he was entitled to half share amounting to Rs. 2667-50 being the compensation for acquisition of a part of the house No. 3/2 in Gudari Bazar, Ujjain.

(2.) There is no dispute that the suit house was purchased by the appellant Shivnarayan in a court auction sate on 10-2-1936. The said action has taken place in execution of a decree of the District Judge, Ujjain. Later on a sale certificate was also issued in favour of the appellant Shivnarayan. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that there was an agreement between him and the appellant to purchase the suit house in auction jointly with half share each. In pursuance to this, he claimed to have paid half of the purchase price. It was also his case that in order to avoid any dispute between them in future the appellant executed an agreement on 27-11-1938 (Ex.P. 2) incorporating the terms of the earlier oral agreement. It appears that by a notice dt. 14-3-1967 (Ex.P. 3) the respondent required the appellant to comply with the aforesaid agreement. The appellant in reply to the notice (Ex.P. 4) denied execution of the agreement and also its legality. In the meantime a part of the suit house was acquired by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain for implementing their scheme. The respondent claimed half of the said compensation. The authority concerned, however, was of the opinion that it could mat decide the title of the parties in compensation matter and, therefore, directed that the same be decided by filing a regular suit, In pursuance of the same, the present suit was filed.

(3.) The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that there was an agreement between the parties to purchase the house jointly. It also held that there was no partnership between the parties. The court also held that S.66 of the Civil P.C. does not apply to the facts of the present case. On these findings, the suit was decreed. The said findings have been affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court and hence this appeal.