KEDAR DAS MOHTA Vs. NAND LAL PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questions arising for decision in these two appeals being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The res-pondents in the two appeals are also common; Nos. 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and Nos. 6 and 7 are two of the defendants, adopted son and widow of Charmanlal Khedia. The appellants in two appeals are not commer. They are other defend-ants of the two suits and claimed title to teh properties in dispute on the basis of purchases from respondent No. 6. Title Suit No 10 of 1957 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa. Second Appeal No. 659 of 1963 arises out of this suit The other suit was originally filed before the Munsif at Chaibassa, but, It appears subsequently this also came before the Subordinate Judge at Chaibassa and was numbered as Title Suit No. 7 of 1959 of that Court Second Appeal No. 600 of 1963 arises out of this suit.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff- respondents in both the suits was that the properties in dispute as described in schedule A to the plaint belonged to Saligram (father of Chaman Lal Khedia) and others and stood recorded in their names in the record of revisional settlement of Porahat. In the year 1934, there was a partition suit No. 86 of 1934 of the court of the Subordinate Judge at Purulia between Saligram and his co-sharers. The dispute was referred to arbitration and according to the award of the arbitrators, which was ultimately made a decree of the court the property was allotted exclusively to the share of Saliaram. According to the award, Salig-ram was also to discharge the debts of the joint family firms Tularam Nathuram and Teipal Madangopal. The aforesaid firms were indebted to the firm Ganga-sahay Rameshwar of Rameshwar (the original plaintiff), ancestor of plaintiff-respondents, and in discharge of those debts Saligram agreed to transfer the property in dispute to the firm Gangasahay Rameshwar. The terms of the transfer were incorporated in a letter of the year 1936 and Rameshwar as proprietor of the said firm came in possession of the property. He continued in exclusive and peaceful possession of the properties in dispute openly and uninterruptedly as well as adversely to the interest of Salig-ram and his descendants for over 12 years. In 1936, Dwarka Das (original defendant No. 1). adoptive father of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2 oJf Second Appeal No. 659 of 1963 and both the appellants of the other appeal were in possession, of the pro per Lies described in Schedule B to the plaints (i.e.. shop Nos. 10 and 11 in Second Appeal 659/63 and shop No. 7 in the other appeal) as tenants under Saligram. They attorned as tenants to Rameshwar and started paying ants to him. The firm Gangasahay Rame-shwar owed some money to Dwarka Das and, therefore, they agreed that the rent payable by him would be adjusted as against that debt and it was so adjusted and satisfied by Jeth Sudi 15, Sambat 2000. After that Dwarka Das started paving rent in cash to Rameshwar. In 1956, there was some dispute between Dwarka Das and Rameshwar on tthe ques-tion of electric installation in the portion of the house in occupation of the former. Rameshwar insisted that he would install electricity only it rent was enhanced. Being annoyed, Dwarka Das directly applied for electric installation denying his tenancy under Rameshwar and setting up tenancy under respondent No, 6. Dwarka Das also stopped paying rent from that time. He also got filed a collusive and fraudulent application by respondent No. 6 in the Chakradbarpur Municipality challenging the mutation in the name of Rameshwar, but they could not succeed. Dwarka Das and respondent No. 6 also set themselves to the task of winning over some of the tenants of the plaintiff-respondents including the appellants in the other appeal i.e.. Second Appeal No. 660 of 1963. Ramesbwar then filed an application before the Circle Officer, Cha-kradharpur, praying for mutation of his name in respect of schedule A properties which was registered as a mutation case and ultimately allowed on 28-8-1.957. During the progress of this mutation proceeding, there was a talk of amicable settlement between Rameshwar and res-pondent. No. 6 and ultimately the latter agreed to execute two registered sale deeds in acknowledgement of the title of Rameshwar as full owner of Schedule A properties and the other for transferring western portion of plot No. 1142 which had also been in possession of Rameshwar for over 12 years, in fact, be and his adoptive mother, respondent No. 7, executed the two registered sale deeds, as agreed upon, on the 26th of August, 1957. At that time, Rameshwar came to know of two sale deed :-- dated 29-7-1957 and 21-8-1957 executed by them selling portions of schedule A property to appellant No. 2 of Second Appeal 659 of 1963 and to the appellants of the other appeal respectively. At the instruction of respondent No. 6 the fact of the execution of the aforesaid sale deeds was also incorporated by the scribe in the sale deeds in favour of Rameshwar in spite of the vehement objection by one of the plaintiff-respondents. It is asserted that neither the sale deeds in favour of the appellants of the two appeals nor the recitals aforesaid in the two sale deeds in favour of Rameshwar have affected the title of the plaintiff-respondants. The appellants of the two appeals having defaulted in payment of rent for ever two months in respect of Schedule B properties and on account of the fact that they were denying the title of the plain-tiff-respondents made themselves liable for eviction.

(3.) On the averments ay stated in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff-respondents claimed the following reliefs: