MEGHA RAM Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WAZIR Chand was owner of the property in dispute as he had purchased the same in an auction from the Custodian. After his death his heirs Bansi Lal son, Jiwan Bai and Ram Piari daughters and Maya Devi wd/o Ram Lal pre-deceased son of Wazir Chand became the owners. Bansi Lal and others mortgaged the property with possession with Dr. Ranjit Singh for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The mortgage deed was executed on 21.2.1973. Ranjit Singh mortgagee inducted Megha Ram as a tenant in one room of the building. Madan Lal, Ramji Dass and Tilak Chand plaintiffs purchased the property from the heirs of Wazir Chand on 15.2.1978 and thereby became its owners. They redeemed the mortgage on 1.3.1978 on payment of Rs. 8,000/- to Ranjit Singh. They then asked Megha Ram to vacate the room and also served a notice on him. All this proved futile. It was then that the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession by ejectment of Megha Ram out of which the present appeal has arisen. Ranjit Singh the mortgagee was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The suit was contested only by Megha Ram and Ranjit Singh was proceeded against ex-parte. Megha Ram denied that he was inducted as a tenant by Ranjit Singh mortgagee. The case set up by him was that he had taken the room on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- from one Majid Khan son of Ibrahim Khan who did not migrate to Pakistan at the time of the partition of the country and, therefore, he was the owner of the property. It was denied that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in dispute and it is alleged that Majid Khan resident of Kalanaur is the owner. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :

(2.) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No. 3 against the defendant and held that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in dispute. Issue No. 2 and 4 were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants it being held that Megha Ram was a tenant over the suit property under Ranjit Singh mortgagee and not under Majid Khan. As a result of these findings the trial Court held that Megha Ram had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee and that on the mortgagee being redeemed, he (the tenant) became a trespasser and was liable to be evicted. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, Megha Ram filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rohtak who affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on August 19, 1982. Hence, this second appeal by Megha Ram defendant.

(3.) AS regards issues No. 2 and 4, both the courts have found that the appellant was a tenant over the suit property under Dr. Ranjit Singh, defendant No. 2 and not under Majid Khan as alleged by the appellant. The courts have considered the oral and documentary evidence and found incongruity in the statement of the witnesses produced by the appellant-defendant and I, therefore, uphold the finding that the appellant was inducted as a tenant by Ranjit Singh mortgagee. In view of these categoric findings, the plea now raised by the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.