BANARSI DASS Vs. DEVI DAYAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendant's appeal and is directed against a decree for declaration passed in Plaintiff's favour. In order to appreciate the controversy, that has arisen before us in the present appeal, it will be proper not only to state the facts at some length but also to set down the genealogical tree of the Defendants. The genealogical tree of the Defendants is as follows: Sewa Ram Karta Ram Kundan Lal Walayti Ram Puran Chand Surat Ram (Bhago widow) (Rajo widow) Sarup Chand Banarsi Dass (Defendant) Salig Ram (Vendor) Amar Chand Karam Chand Om parkash Girdhari Lal

(2.) PLAINTIFF , at one time, was the tenant of the shop in dispute. He had been let into the shop by Banarsi Dass, Defendant. The original date of letting in is not clear from the record but there is the last rent note of 29th April, 1957, on the record. Under this rent note, the shop was rented out by Banarsi Dass, Defendant, to Devi Dayal, Plaintiff. The site of shop in dispute was acquired by Salig Ram, real brother of Banarsi Dass, Defendant, in a Government auction an the 2nd of April, 1933, - -(vide Exhibit PB/1). The price Rs. 850 was paid in three installments as follows:

(3.) BANARSI Dass, thereafter, took proceedings for eviction of Devi Dayal and before he could evict him, Devi Dayal filed the present suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the shop in dispute having purchased the same from Salig Ram, who was the owner thereof. He also claimed permanent injunction restraining Banarsi Dass from evicting him under the eviction decree obtained by him, a reference to which has already been made. This suit was resisted by Banarsi Dass. His pleas were that the shop in dispute did not be long to Salig Ram; that it belonged to the Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself, Salig Ram and others and that, it the moment of the written statement, it was owned by Banarsi Dass alone having fallen to his share in a private partition. It may be mentioned that Salig Ram died during the pendency of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: