GOPAL SAH Vs. CAPTAIN BRAJ KISHORE CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four appeals have arisen out of the common judgment passed by both the Courts below. The appellate Court has reversed the dismissal of the suits as recorded by the Munsif, Motihari and decree has been granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The facts in all the four appeals are similar in nature which can be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff in all the suits is the same. Only the defendants were separate individuals. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was owned by his grand-father Lalita Prasad Choudhary who had three sons, namely, Satya Prasad Choudhary-defendant No. 3, Ganga Prasad Choudhary-defendant No. 2 from one wife while Rajendra Prasad Choudhary from another wife. Defendant No. 2 Ganga Prasad Choudhary has three sons, namely, Birendra Prasad Choudhary, Surendra Prasad Choudhary and Braj Kishore Prasad Choudhary-plaintiff. The holding in dispute, the description of which has been given in the schedules of the plaint, was said to be fallen into the share of Lalita Prasad Choudhary exclusively through a partition decree in partition Suit No. 39 of 1933 (Ext. 3). After the death of Lalita Prasad Choudhary, his two sons, that is, defendants 2 and 3 only remained in possession over the suit property and by an amicable partition in the year, 1969, between defendants 2 and 3, the suit property fell in the exclusive share of defendant No. 2, i.e., the father of the plaintiff and ultimately, another partition took place amongst the father and the brothers of the plaintiff and the suit property fell into the share of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, father his other brothers and his uncle have got no concern about the suit property. But to avoid any complication, his father and uncle had been made defendants in the suit.

(3.) It was further case of the plaintiff that the four rooms in the suit holding had been given on rent to defendants of the four suits on a rental of Rs. 10.00 per month. But, they ailed to pay the rent since long and as such, they became defaulters. It was further stated that the plaintiff being an Army man, wanted to settle his family within the suit holdings and as such, both on the ground of defaulter and also of personal necessity, four eviction suits have been filed against the four appellants of these four appeals together with arrears of rent.