DILLIP GUPTA Vs. DEBASHISH PALIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants first set (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') are the appellants against a Judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-3-2003, passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Patna, in title Appeal No. 45 of 1999/ 5 of 2001 (Dilip Gupta & Anr. v. Debashish Palit & Ors.), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants (the appellants herein), and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1999, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, Patna, in title Suit No. 61 of 1986 (Debashish Palit & Ors. v. Dilip Gupta & Anr). The learned trial Court had decreed the suit and ordered for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property, and for khas possession of the plaintiffs. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

(2.) First the background of the present suit. Late T. C. Palit, the ancestor of the plaintiffs (respondent first set herein), had executed a temporary lease deed in favour of late S. N. Gupta, father of the defendants, on 25-8-1946 (Ext. 4), with respect to 15 kathas and 8 dhurs of land in the township of Patna for a period of 29 years at a monthly rental of Rs.205/- with the right of renewal to the lessee for a further period of ten years on the terms and conditions stated in the lease deed. S. N. Gupta was put in possession of the lease-hold land on 1-1-1947. During the currency of the lease, the lessor had to file various money suits, namely, Money Suit Nos. 260 of 1953, No. 228/156 of 1954, No. 195 of 1951/10 of 1968, and No. 249 of 1963, for realisation of arrears of rent all of which were decreed. Photocopies of the judgments are marked Ext. 6/A, 6/B, 6/C and 6/D respectively. The lessor once again determined the lease on 23-12-1966 on account of default in payment of rent and instituted Title Suit No. 70/1967 for eviction of the lessee from the lease hold land. T. C. Palit died during the pendency of this suit and was substituted by his heirs. The period of 29 years contemplated by the lease deed (Ext. 4) ended on 31-12-1975, and the lease at the option of the lessee stood renewed for a further period of ten years. A joint compromise petition (Ext. O) was filed in the said Title Suit No. 70 of 1967/6 of 1973 on 18-2-1980, which was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 13-3-1980 (Ext. P), and the compromise petition (Ext. O), formed part of the decree. The terms of compromise in substance were that the lessee would surrender to the lessor 12 kathas and 5 dhurs of the lease-hold land with the building thereupon in occupation of old tenants, and the right, title and interest with respect to the balance 3 kathas and 3 dhurs along with the constructions/shops thereupon was alienated absolutely in favour of the lessee. Another term of the compromise petition was that the lessor agreed to forego the entire arrears of rent upto February 1980. The right, title and interest in 3 kathas and 5 dhurs of land along with buildings constructed thereon was thus for the first time created in favour of the defendants. Another term of the compromise was that the cost of registration was to be borne by the lessee. The lessor had thereafter to institute Title suit No. 175 of 1980/6 of 1982 for evicting the lessee from a portion of the land retained by the lessor. The lessor ultimately got possession of the same. The lessee did not get the compromise decree registered.

(3.) In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the lessor instituted the present Title Suit No. 61 of 1986, seeking the relief of eviction of the defendants (the lessees) from the aforesaid 3 kathas and 3 dhurs, and to obtain khas possession primarily on the ground that the aforesaid compromise decree (Ext. P) needed compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The learned trial Court on contest decreed the suit, ordered for eviction of the defendants, and restoration of possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.