SHAKUNTALA BAI Vs. BHAGWANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1986 rendered by D J. Dewas in C.S. No. 302-A of 1981, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, for declaration, possession and mesne profits with regard to the suit property.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, original plaintiffs filed a suit against the present appellants and other respondents for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits with regard to the house and adjoining land situated at village Balgarh, standard mills area, now included within the limits of Municipality, Dewas. As per the case of plaintiffs, suit property originally belonged to one Bhanwarlal, father of respondent No.1 Bhagwandas and his brother late Nathufal. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are L.Rs. of late Nathulal. It is stated that on the death of said Bhanwarlal, respondent No.1 Bhagwandas and his brother Nathulal acquired the suit property as owners. On the death of Nathulal, respondent Nos. 2 to 8 alongwith respondent No. 1 became owner of the suit property It is alleged that respondent No.1 Bhagwandas and late Nathulal mortgaged the suit property to one Bahadur Singh by mortgage-deed dated 15.9.1964 by way of conditional sale for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter, the said property was sold to respondent No 1, Bhagwandas and Nathulal as a tenant by Bahadur Singh on monthly rent of Rs. 135/- as per rent note dated 15.9.1964. In 1968, Bahadur Singh filed a suit against respondent No. 1 and deceased Nathulal for eviction frdm the accommodation and for arrears of rent under the provisions of Rent Control Act The said suit was decreed in favour of Bahadur Singh as per. judgment and decree dated 30.4.1969. Copy of the judgment and decree are Exhs. P/4 and P/5. It is stated that in execution of the decree for eviction on 25.9 1969 Bahadur Singh got possession of the suit-accommodation. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, Bhagwandas and late Nathulal left village Balgarh and settled at village Sat nod, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

(3.) In February, 1978, Nathulal expired. On 10.6.1978 respondent No. 1 Bhagwandas came to Dewas and at that time one Sajansin'gh was found in possession of the suit property and other respondents also occupying different portions of the suit property in the capacity of tenant by said Sajansingh. On an enquiry, said Sajansingh asserted his title in the suit property on the basis of oral agreement of sale with late Nathulal for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- were already paid to Nathulal. On 10.6.1978 said Sajansingh lodged report Ex. P/9 against respondent No. 1 alleging that he quarrelled and wanted to take forcible possession of the suit property. After the aforesaid incident, on 15.8.1980, respondent No. 1, Bhawandas paid mortgage money to deceased Bahadur Singh and released the suit property from the mortgage. Respondent No. 1 and L.Rs. of Nathulal filed the present suit against said Sa'ansingh and other respondents for declaration possession and mesne profits on 18.7.1980. During pendency of the suit Sajansingh expired and in his place, present appellants are substituted as L.Rs. of the deceased. Deceased Sajansingh and other respondents contested the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 8 on the averment that Sajansingh acquired ownership rights in the property in the year 1964 on the basis of agreement to sell the disputed property for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- by deceased Nathulal. It is stated that Sajansingh paid Rs. 10,000/- to deceased Nathulal and got possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs suit was also resisted on the ground that late Sajansingh was in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and became owner of the same on the ground of adverse possession. It is also alleged that plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation as they are not found in possession of the suit property within 12 years of filing of the suit. The other respondent/tenants also resisted the suit only on the ground that they are inducted as tenants by late Sajansingh and they cannot be evicted from the accommodation, in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession