RAJESH GUPTA Vs. SH. MAHABIR PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Kalawati was the owner of the property in dispute. Rajesh Gupta, her daughter's son, filed a suit for declaration against her claiming ownership of the property in dispute on the basis of some family arrangement. Smt. Kalawati confessed judgment and a decree for declaration was passed in favour of Rajesh Gupta against Smt. Kalawati on 25th March, 1976 (Exhibit A. 4) by the Civil Court. The property in dispute was in possession of Mahabir Parshad as a tenant. Rajesh Gupta, after becoming owner of the property, filed a petition for ejectment on 13th December, 1976, against Mahabir Parshad on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent and pleaded all the necessary ingredients. Since the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing, therefore, only the ground of personal necessity remained to be decided

(2.) IN the written statement, Mahabir Parshad pleaded that he was a tenant of Smt. Kalawati and stated that the applicant had no concern with the house. It was further pleaded that the transaction between the applicant and Smt. Kalawati was a fraudulent one and even if the applicant was proved to be owner of the property in dispute, no case for personal necessity was made out. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed: -

(3.) THE compromise decree between the original owner and the petitioner was passed on 25th March, 1976 and Smt. Kalawati, the original owner, appeared as A.W. 2 on 28th March, 1977, in this case and admitted that under the Civil Court decree the applicant had become the owner of the property in dispute. Tej Parkash son of the respondent -tenant appeared as R.W. 3 and admitted that Smt. Kalawati had sent a notice that under the civil Court decree Rajesh Gupta had become owner of the property and was entitled to receive rent and that Rajesh Gupta had also served a similar notice stating therein that he has become the landlord and is entitled to receive the rent Smt. Kalawati was entitled to transfer the ownership of the properly in dispute to Rajesh Gupta by a registered gift -deed or could suffer a decree and in the case of a decree it would not matter whether the facts stated in the plaint were correct or not because it was Smt. Kalawati alone who was entitled to challenge the facts and once she accepts the facts stated in the plaint to be correct and suffers a decree that decree would not only bind her but would bind her tenant also. A consent decree is as good a decree as a contested decree would be unless the same is avoided in any one of the permissible ways. Reference may be made to the following observations in para 22 of the Supreme Court decision in Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai : A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 280.