RULDU RAM Vs. PISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baggu Mal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and father of the plaintiff representing himself to be the owner in possession of the demised premises, transferred the same to Pishori Lal defendants vide registered sale deed for consideration in November,1959. It is not disputed that the demised premises was transferred to Baggu Mal vide order dated 6.1.1959 with effect from 1.10.1955. The defendant proved the order of transfer Exhibit D-33, the sale deed executed by Baggu Mal in favour of the plaintiff in Nov. 1959 as Exhibit D1 and the mortgage by him in Jan. 1959 vide Exhibit D2.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Baggu Mal neither had any title to the demised premises on the date of mortgage nor at the time of sale, hence neither he could sell the demised premises nor pass on a valid title to the defendant. The Rehabilitation Department transferred the property in dispute to the plaintiff appellants vide order dated 28.2.1977. Thus, the plaintiffs sought a decree for possession of the demised premises.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit. It was held that the demised premises were transferred to Baggu Mal with effect from 1.10.1955. Sanad to that effect was issued. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Baggu who has sold it to the defendant in 1959. The defendant had acquired title to it and the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. It was further held that even if there was any defect at the time of sale, it stood rectified when Baggu Mal predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs acquired a valid title. Secondly, the plaintiffs being heirs of Baggu Mal are bound by his acts. Thirdly, since the defendant was found to be in possession since 1959 as owner, hence the title had matured in his favour by adverse possession.