RAJA RAM PRASAD GUPTA Vs. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an order on I.A. No. 4340 of 2003 filed by appellants under Order XLI, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure and supplementary affidavit under Section 151 and Order XLI, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by Registrar General and staying the further proceedings in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2002 filed by respondent first party in the Court of Subordinate Judge-IV, Madhubani.

(2.) The case of appellants is that they have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2002 passed by Subordinate Judge-IV, Madhubani in Title Suit No. 26 of 1993 whereby the appellants and other defendants have been directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs-respondents. The further case of appellants is that they were defendants-second party before the Court below and they filed their written statement but they were disallowed by the court below to examine the witnesses brought against them and since the impugned decree has been passed in their absence, therefore, the eviction order is fit to be quashed by this Court and besides this, the suit of plaintiffs- respondents is liable to be dismissed on the grounds mentioned in the written statement as well as in the memo of appeal filed before this Court. Challenging the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by Registrar General rejecting the prayer of appellants for staying the further proceeding of Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2002 and also vacating ad interim stay granted earlier, the case of the appellants is that suit property is, admittedly, a residential house and, admittedly, appellants are in possession of the same and the Registrar General has wrongly observed that it has not clearly been shown that the suit property is a residential house. It has also been argued that the learned Registrar General has rejected the prayer of appellants observing that it is not a case of landlord and tenant meaning thereby that stay can be granted only in a case of landlord and tenant which is against the principle of natural justice and the Registrar General has further observed that no irreparable loss or injury will be caused if the stay is refused which is against the principle laid down by this court in the case of Sahid Mian and Anr. v. Anirudh Prasad, 1998 (2) PLJR 127, where it has been held that if any person inducts tenant in the house it is the duty of such person to protect the tenant's interest since in an execution proceeding, tenants cannot approach the court for any relief and if the tenants are dispossessed, it would amount to dispossession. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has opposed the prayer of plaintiffs- appellants.

(3.) The plaintiffs-respondents filed a title suit for declaration of their title and possession over the suit land and also for declaration that sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 Girja Devi and her husband Baldeo Sah in favour of different persons on different dates in respect of suit land were collusive, fraudulent and without consideration. The case of plaintiff-respondent before the Court below was that he purchased the suit land from Kumar Yagneshwar Singh and he paid consideration money to him in token of which money receipt dated 1.4.1962 was granted to him by Kumar Yagneshwar Singh who delivered possession to the plaintiff on that very day but because ceiling case was pending against the estate of Kumar Yagneshwar Singh so sale deeds with respect to suit land were executed on 21.4.1992 and 18.8.1992 after the disposal of ceiling case and in these sale deeds, it is clearly stated that vendor had already received consideration money and after getting the occupation over the suit land in the year, 1962, plaintiff- respondent's father constructed four rooms and let out those rooms to Baldeo Sah on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- and Baldeo Sah paid rent to father of plaintiff and even after the death of father of plaintiff, Baldeo Sah and his wife Girja Devi who was defendant No. 1 in the court below used to pay rent to the plaintiff regularly but from January, 1992, they stopped the payment of rent and when in the month of May and June, 1992, plaintiff-respondent made demand for payment of rent, he came to learn that Baldeo Sah and his wife had inducted a number of tenants over suit premises and later on he came to know that appellants, who were defendants 4 and 5 before the Court below, were claiming right, title over the suit land on the basis of two kewals dated 9.4.1992 and 14.2.1992 executed in their favour by Girja Devi in respect of some portion of suit land. He also came to know that Girja Devi had also executed some other sale deeds in favour of other defendants.