VADRICHAND Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, Camp Garoth, in the matter of Civil Suit No. 07 -A/1981 by which learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) for getting Rs. 10,280/ - from respondent No. 1 and relief claimed from respondents 2 and 3. So also he issued directions to appellant to deliver possession of the suit land to respondent No. 1 as well as issued direction to respondent No. 4 to grant lease in favour of respondent No. 1 with a permission to construct the building.

(2.) FEW facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy. Respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council Bhanpura, had leased the suit land to appellant by auction for one year. After the said period was over, by a subsequent auction, the suit land was directed to be leased to respondent No. 1 after accepting Rs. 10,280/ - from him. Respondent No. 1 was also permitted to construct over the suit land by respondent No. 4. While doing so, the physical possession of the suit land which was with the appellant, was not taken by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law. By the direction in the judgment and decree the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 have also been put to hardship. Respondent No. 1 was required to pay Rs. 10,280/ - for the purpose of getting the lease and possession of the suit land but as the appellant was not dispossessed from the suit land by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law, he has also been put to hardship. On account of this, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the said decree and making a prayer for substitution of it by a proper and just decree.

(3.) THE tone of the argument of both the learned counsel makes it very clear that by the directions embodied in the judgment and decree both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 have been put to hardship. Unless the appellant has been dispossessed by respondent No. 4 by following due process of law, respondent No. 1 can not be installed in the suit land as a lessee. However, he has been required to deposit the sum of Rs. 10,280/ - as auction money with respondent No. 4 and that is lying with respondent No. 4 at the cost of respondent No. 1 who has been deprived of a lawful interest acruing on that amount.