LAWS(GAU)-1996-9-44

MATHILDA KHARMALKI Vs. SABINA NENGRUM

Decided On September 20, 1996
KA.MATHILDA KHARMALKI Appellant
V/S
KA.SABINA NENGRUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 arises from the judgment and order dated 6-2-1995 passed by the District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner at Shillong, in Title Civil Appeal No. 2(T) / 92 affirming the judgment and order dated 8-10-1991 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, East Khashi Hills, Shillong in Title Suit No. 27(T)/1984 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, namely, Ka Sabina Nengrum, the respondent-opposite party herein and entitling her for a decree for eviction of the defendants including the defendant No. 7 i. e. the present petitioner herein from the suit house and out houses and also for arrears of rent, costs of the suit with certain interest thereon till the execution of the decree.

(2.) The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows :The plaintiff-respondent (Opposite Party No. 1 herein) instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the the suit premises and for realisation of the arrear rents from the defendants, initially from the defendants, Nos. 1 to 6. According to the plaintiff, Ka Sabina Nengrum, she is the grand daughter of Ka Therisia Nengrum, who according to the Khasi Customary Law inherited a plot of land at Mongpoh in which the two storied house and out-houses are standing thereon which are morefully described in the schedule of the plaint. A dispute arose about the ownership over the suit land between the plaintiff-Opposite party No. 1, herein and the Late Ka Barbara Belibon Kharmalki, wife of late U. Linus Nengrum, maternal uncle of the plaintiff which was later on decided by the Judge, East Khashi Hills District Council, Shillong in Title civil Appeal No. 5 of 1977 affirming the right, title, ownership of the present plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff went on to state that a Revision Petition was preferred by the defendants as against the said judgment of the Judge, East Khashi Hills District Council, Shillong passed in Title Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1977 under Civil Revision No. 12(H) 1978 before this Court, Later on, this Court upheld the judgment of the learned Judge, East Khashi Hills District Council passed in Title Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1977. The plaintiff went on to state that after his title over the suit land has been affirmed by the Highest Court of this State, the plaintiff contacted the defendants and asked them to pay the rent. However, the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 refused to pay rent to the plaintiff in spite of the fact that the suit premises belonged to the plaintiff. Lastly, the defendant No. 6 alone paid the rent of Rs. 100/- per month instead of Rs. 200/- for the month of February, March and April, 1984 and, thereafter the defendant No. 6 stopped payment of rent to them. As the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 did not pay the house rent to the plaintiff on the instigation of the defendant No. 7 (the present petitioner herein), the plaintiff filed the present suit. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed their joint written statement and whereas the defendant No. 7 filed her written statement separately and contested the suit of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that there is no cause of action for a suit; the suit is notmaintainable; the suit suffers from His joinder and non-joinder of parties; and that the present petitioner (defendant No. 7) is the only. daughter of Late Ka Barbara Belibon Kharmalki. The defendant No. 7 went on to State that her husband U. Wilfrod Mashli, and herself possessed the suit premises through their tenants i.e. the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and recently another new tenant up till now. The defendant No. 7, the petitioner herein went on to contend that she is the owner of the suit premises and that the rented the suit house to the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 but presently defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are still there but the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 left the suit premises.

(3.) On the pleadings of both the parties, learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, East Khashi Hills, Shillong, framed as many as 12 issues which are quoted below :