DHARAMWATI BAI Vs. SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 1 (since deceased) whose sale deed dated 10-1-1963 (Ex. D/22) has been declared not binding on plaintiff Shiv Singh and who is injuncted permanently from interfering with plaintiffs ownership and possession of the property covered by the sale deed. The sale deed was executed by defendant No. 2 and the decree bound her also, but during the trial of the suit, she expired and in this appeal, her adopted son, Vijay Singh, is impleaded as respondent No. 2.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 17-8-1964 and occasion evidently was provided by judgment rendered on 7-2-1964 by this Court in Second Appeal No.140 of 1963 in which late Janki Bai, defendant No. 2, was arrayed as respondent No. 2. That appeal arose out of a suit instituted by the appellant late Bapu Saheb Tomak, father of plaintiff Shiv Singh. Be it mentioned, however, that during the pendency of the instant appeal Shiv Singh also died. But, it is also noteworthy that even during his lifetime, he was not interested is presenting the suit and as such, defendant No. 6 Harish Chandra (herein respondent No. 7) secured an order from this Court under which he was allowed to conduct the suit. There is no doubt that he has acquired interest pendente lite in the suit property in virtue of an agreement of sale thereof executed in his favour by plaintiff Shiv Singh on 18-2-1968. As in the Court below, here also the contest is mainly between defendant No. 1 Dharmavati (since deceased) and defendant respondent Harish Chandra.

(3.) In Civil Suit No. 25 of 1962, giving rise to aforesaid Second Appeal No. 140 of 1963, plaintiff Bapu Saheb, Shiv Singh's father, had sued the State Government for recovery of rent for the period from 26-9-1948 to 23-3-1968 in respect of the suit premises and in that suit Janki Bai was impleaded as defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1, State Government, pleaded that it was prepared to pay rent for the suit premises on entitlement to receive that rent being settled by Court by deciding the contest between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Among others, the following two issues were framed in that suit :