KULDIP SINGH SAWHNEY Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises bearing No. B-I-S-IX-392 New Nazhar Hussain Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana was evacuee property. It was purchased by Sujan Singh, father of the petitioner. The premises excluding 3 shops was in occupation of Prakash Chand (now deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as a tenant under Sujan Singh. Sujan Singh made an oral partition of his property amongst his sons and a memo of partition deed Dec. 10, 1975, was executed which was effective since Oct. 26, 1974. Sujan Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh filed a suit on the basis of memo of partition, which was decreed by Senior Sub Judge on Jan. 28, 1976. The premises in dispute fell to the share of Kuldip Singh petitioner. On May 27, 1976, Kuldip singh petitioner claiming to be the landlord of the premises filed an application for ejectment against Prakash Chand on the grounds of non-payment of rent w. e. f. Mar. 1, 1976 and personal requirement. The petitioner was in railway service and he retired as Inspector of Works on Aug. 31, 1976.

(2.) THE arrears of rent claimed by the petitioner was tendered on the first date of hearing. Parkash Chand denied that he was liable to be ejected. He raised the plea that on Nov. 11, 1975, Sujan Singh father of the petitioner had agreed to sell the premises in his occupation to him for Rs. 35000/- vide agreement Ex. R. 13 and he paid Rs. 2000/- as earnest money besides Rs. 2100/- for purchase of stamp paper to Sujan Singh. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by Nov. 30, 1976 or within one month after the purchase of the stamp paper by Sunjan Singh and the intimation thereof to him whichever was later. He has ceased to be tenant of the premises after the execution of the agreement Ex. R. 13 and he is in possession thereof in part performance of the agreement under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The ejectment petition filed against him by the petitioner under the Act is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) KULDIP Singh petitioner appeared as witness and stated that the oral partition was effected in 1974 and the memo of partition was reduced into writing in 1975. On the basis of this memo of partition, his father Sujan Singh and his brother Jaswinder Singh filed a civil suit. He along with his other brother admitted the claim made in the civil suit. All the properties referred to in the memo of partition were allotted to his father in lieu of the claim of the ancestral property left by them in Pakistan. He approached Parkash Chand with the request that after the partition, the rent be paid to him. Prakash Chand refused disputed signatures of Sujan Singh on the agreement Ex. R. 13 are similar to his admitted signatures on the receipts Exs. R. 1 to R. 10. The parties have not led any expert evidence on this point. A visual comparison of the disputed signatures of Sujan Singh on Ex. R. 13 with his admitted signatures on the receipts Exs. R. 1 to R. 10 reflect remarkable similarity. It is difficult to negative the finding of the learned appellate authority that the signatures of Sujan Singh on the agreement Ex. R. 13 are genuine.