SHER SINGH Vs. TIKKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that Tikka Singh and others sons of Man Singh respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiffs") filed the suit against Sher Singh and others appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as "the defendants") seeking a decree of rendition of accounts, inter-alia, pleading that Smt. Thakri widow of Nihala was the previous owner of the land in dispute and it was leased out to Man Singh and Biju sons of Dhan Singh and others, vide registered lease deed dated 4.7.1953 for a period of 30 years. Smt. Thakri had died and the plaintiffs were stated to have inherited and become owners of the suit land, which continued to be in possession of the defendants as lessees. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants are liable to rendition of accounts with effect from Rabi 1983 onwards and to pay the arrears of rent of the land, which is under their un-authorized possession, after the expiry of lease period of 30 years. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of rendition of accounts against the defendants in the manner indicated here-in-above.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of suit; locus standi of the plaintiffs and jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On merits, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not the owners but they (defendants) are owners and in possession of the suit land. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues including issue No. 5 (whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit), which was treated as preliminary issue.