DURGA PRASAD Vs. TARKESHWARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs-respondents-appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.6.1990 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Motihari in Title Appeal No. 19 of 1986/ 12 of 1986 whereby the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Motihari in Title Suit No. 68 of 1974/ 18 of 1986.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession from the defendants 3rd party with respect to the suit property measuring 2.5 dhur in plot No. 426 of khata No. 123. According to the plaintiff he has got 2.5 dhur ancestral land in plot No.426 and adjacent to that ancestral land some Parti land of the ex-landlord was there. The plaintiffs came in possession of 2.5 dhur land of the ex-landlord and continued in possession thereof. This is the suit land. In the ancestral land the plaintiffs constructed two rooms. In one room the plaintiff had a bicycle shop and in the other room a tenanted saloon is running. In 1956 the plaintiffs constructed a house in the suit land but because of no permission was obtained from the municipality the construction was stopped after construction of one room only. Prior to this construction he had inducted Harishankar Dubey in the year 1954 permitting him to construct a Gomti. He was running a betel shop and subsequently he abandoned it. Thereafter the plaintiff inducted defendant No.2 in the Gomti on monthly rent of Rs.5 and the rent was enhanced to Rs.9.00 in the year 1965. The defendant No.2 paid the same till 1969 and thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.15.00. The defendant did not accept this enhancement so the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit property. The defendant filed application for mutation of his name in the municipality which was rejected. However, subsequently, he obtained a settlement from the State of Bihar. Hence the suit has been filed.

(3.) THAT there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the plaintiff has got title and interest over the suit property vide paragraph 17 and 20. The defendants filed title appeal. The appellate court reversed the finding and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove title and relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.