LAWS(PAT)-1958-12-12

RAMPEARYALAL KHANDELWAL Vs. SURAJMAL MARWARI

Decided On December 05, 1958
RAMPEARYALAL KHANDELWAL Appellant
V/S
SURAJMAL MARWARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for determination in this appeal by the plaintiff is whether the finding of the trial Judge that the principal defenj dants had acquired title by adverse possession is correct in law.

(2.) It is not disputed that the original owners of the, house in dispute were the defendants. But they executed a sale deed (Ext, 1) on 9-10-1922 in favour of the plaintiff and the consideration of the sale deed was set off towards earlier dues due from the defendants to the plaintiff. In the Court below, the title of the plaintiff, was questioned on the ground that the sale deed (Ext. 1) was a benami transaction. The learned Subordinate Judge, however after a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the sale deed in question was not a benami transaction but a real transaction which was given effect to. This finding has not been challenged by Mr. B.C. De who appeared for the defendant-respondents.

(3.) The present dispute between the parties arose under the following circumstances : According to the plaintiff, as he was residing in the State of Orissa, he let out a portion of the house, which is situated at Dhanbad in the State of Bihar, at the request of the principal defendant's father, Lachhmi Narain to him, after the execution and registration of the sale deed (Ext. 1) on a monthly rental, and he on the 9th October, 1922, executed a letter acknowledging his monthly tenancy (Ext. 13 (e)). The house, thereafter, continued to be let out to the defendants from time to time, and later on the entire house was let out to them and kirayananias were every time executed by the defendant's father, Lachhmi Narain, which are Exhibits 13(e), 13(i), 13(j) and 13(b). The first Kiryanama is exhibit 13(e) and the last one is. Exhibit 13(b). The plaintiff, thereafter, determined the monthly tenancy of the defendants on the 3rd January, 1949 by a notice (Ext. 6) and on failure of the defendants to vacate the house, brought the present suit in ejectment.