KUNJ BEHARI LAL Vs. VED PARKASH KANSRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this second appeal relates to a house situate in Batala, District gurdaspur. It, admittedly, belong to one Das Mal, a Brahmin, who died leaving a widow Shrimati Chandi and a daughter Shrimati Lal Devi. One Parbati alias Paro, khatri by caste, also claimed to be his widow. On 4th September, 1940 this house was given on a monthly rent of Re. 1/- to Mansa Ram by a deed, Exhibit D. W. 2/a, by Parbati. on 29th July, 1942, Chandi and Lal Devi executed a gift deed, Exhibit p. W. 1/a, regarding this house along with another one and a shop in favour of arya Pradeshak Priti Nidhi Sabha, hereinafter called the A. P. P. Sabha, through its president Guru Datt. In the said deed, it was mentioned that Paro was a keep of das Mal and she was in possession of his house at Amritsar by way of maintenance and had no right in this house. On 31st July, 1942, Parbati gifted her alleged half share in this house, vide Exhibit d. W. 1/a, to Sanatan Dharam Yuvak Sabha, Batala, hereinafter referred to as the yuvak Sabha. On 2nd August, 1942, Chandi executed a rent-deed, Exhibit P. W. 6/a, in favour of A. P. P. Sabha in respect of two rooms in this house and two rooms in another house. On the same day, Mansa Ram wrote a rent-deed, Exhibit p. W. 3/b, in respect of the remaining portion of this house in favour of the said sabha and the endorsements on the back of this deed show that he paid rent to the Sabha. On 1st December, 1947, Roshan Lal took this house on lease, vide Exhibit P. W. 3/a, from Guru Dutt, President of the A. P. P. Sabha. Endorsements on the back of this deed also show that he paid rent for the same. On 19th February, 1950, one des Raj executed a rent-deed, Exhibit D. W. 2/b, regarding this house in favour of the Yuvak Sabha. On 26th October, 1955, there is a rent-deed, Exhibit D. W. 2/c, by Wazir Chand, defendant No. 2, in favour of the Yuvak Sabha regarding this very house. On 6th May, 1958, vide Exhibit P. W. 5/a, Kunj Behari Lal, plaintiff, executed a rent-deed regarding this house in favour of the A. P. P. Sabha. It appears that subsequently Ved Parkash Kansra, Secretary of the Yuvak Sabha, defendant No. 1, filed an ejectment application against Wazir Chand, defendant no. 2, before the Rent Controller and obtained an order of eviction against him. When the said order was being executed, Kunj Behari Lal resisted delivery of possession saying that he was in possession of the said house in his own right as a tenant under the A. P. P. Sabha and he had no connection either with defendant no. 1 or defendant No. 2. On 9th May, 1959, the executing Court, vide Exhibit P. W. 8/a, held that the A. P. P. Sabha was never in possession of the house for the last more than 12-13 years and that the resistance by Kunj Behari Lal was without any just cause. It, therefore, directed that the decree-holder be put into possession of the house and a warrant of possession was, consequently, issued. This led to the filing of the suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, by Kunj Behari Lal on 13th may, 1959, for a declaration that the order dated 9th May, 1959 was illegal and not binding on him. His case was that he was in possession of the house as a tenant under the A. P. P. Sabha, his landlord was the owner of the said house, the order of eviction was a collusive one, Wazir Chand was never in possession of this house and since the plaintiff was in its possession, he could be ousted only by the true owner.

(2.) THIS suit was resisted by the Yuvak Sabha, which controverted the claim of the plaintiff on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that the A. P. P. Sabha was neither the owner of the house nor was ever in its possession. The Yuvak Sabha was its owner since 1942. The plaintiff never occupied this house and he was not the tenant of the A. P. P. Sabha. He had got into its possession in collusion with wazir Chand, defendant No. 2, after the order of eviction had been passed in favour of defendant No. 1 against the latter. The order dated 9th May, 1959, was legal and the suit was collusive and had been instituted for the benefit of defendant No. 2.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:-"