LAWS(P&H)-1991-11-14

SHEO DAYAL Vs. OM PARKASH

Decided On November 12, 1991
SHEO DAYAL Appellant
V/S
OM PARKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes of Regular Second Appeals No. 40 and 41 of 1979. These are directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which, on appeal, reversed those of the trial Judge and decreed the suit of Om Parkash alias Dhaulia, plaintiff/respondent No. 1, for specific performance of agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974.

(2.) FACTS first :om Parkash alias Dhaulia, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, sought specific performance of agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974 regarding the suit land against Umrao Singh and Mittar Sen, defendant-respondents No. 2 and 3 in R. S. A. No. 40 of 1979 and appellants in R. S. A. No. 41 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the lessors ). Sheo Dayal and Chiranji were arrayed as defendants Nos. 4 and 5 by the plaintiff since they claimed that they were in possession of the disputed land under a prior lease deed dated June 1, 1972. They are appellants in R. S. A. No. 40 of 1979, but will be referred to as the second lessees in the body of this judgment. As alleged in the plaint the lessors were to lease out the disputed land to the plaintiff for 99 years on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 180/ -. The lease deed was to be registered on or before July 31,1974. The plaintiff was put in possession of the disputed land by the lessors. The second set of lessees threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land. They claimed that they were in possession under an earlier lease agreement.

(3.) THE lessors and the second set of lessees contested the claim of the plaintiff. The lessors denied having executed agreement to lease in favour of the plaintiff ; that the agreement to lease was otherwise invalid being in respect of the property which was charitable in character and inalienable. The second set of lessees pleaded that the agreement to lease in favour of the plaintiff was a fake document and they claimed themselves to be in possession of the disputed property under an agreement to lease under the lessors prior to the execution of the agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974.