CHURCH OF SCOTLAND Vs. CHANGEZ DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This aforesaid second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The undisputed facts are that Reverend Daniel Tajdeen, father of the respondents here-in was employed as priest with the Church of Scotland (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff). He was initially posted at Sialkot in the year 1946. He was transferred as priest in-charge of the Church being run under the Church of Scotland at Chamba. It is also not disputed that the demised premises known as Pastor house/Manse situate in Chamba town alongwith land pertinent thereto comprise in Khasra Nos. 1440, 1441, 1441/1, 1442, 1443, 1443/1 and 8726/1446 measuring 3875 sq. yards and Khasra No. 2050 measuring 112-4 sq. yards in revenue estate Chamba. Reverend Daniel Tajdeen expired on 5.9.1987. His wife Mrs. Daniel Tajdeen expired on 8.2.1988. Thereafter, a suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 10.07.1990 for possession of the suit property. The allegation in this suit was that Rev. Daniel Tajdeen, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-defendants had been allotted the house and land in question free of cost in consideration of his rendering services to the Church. According to the plaintiff, since the Rev. Daniel Tajdeen, who was the employee of the Church, had expired, the respondents had no right to remain in possession of the property and they were ranked tress-passers therein.

(3.) Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants and the stand of the defendants was that Rev. Daniel Tajdeen had been allotted the house known as Mission Hospital on payment of Rs. 14/- as monthly rent. As far as the house situated in Khasra No. 2050 was concerned according to respondents only defendant/respondent No. 3 was in possession thereof. The respondents also claimed that the property was given to Rev. Daniel Tajdeen on payment of rent @ Rs. 14/- per month which amount was being adjusted from his pay. Various other objections were raised but we are at this stage not concerned with all these objections. The issues which are relevant for decision are as follows: