GOVIND NARAIN MATHUR Vs. MOHINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have preferred this appeal, which arises out of a suit for declaration of title to certain lands and houses described in para-graphs 2 and 3 of the plaint. THEre was also a prayer for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation. THE lands consist of five different plots comprised in Khasra Nos, 742 to 745 of the Municipality, and are situated at Kesarganj in the town of Ajmer with a house known as Kothi and two small houses appurtenant thereto standing on the above lands.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that on the 4th of November, 1897, the permanent lease hold rights in the lands in question were acquired by their father the late Munshi Lakshmi Narain, who was a lawyer and had set up practice at Ajmer. THE said Munshi Lakshmi Narain very soon built up a lucrative practice, and after the acquisitions of the lands got the disputed house constructed thereon. THE plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 are all descended from a common stock, and to appreciate the case of the parties, it is necessary to bear in mind a small pedigree : Ramnarain Lakshmi Narain Swaroop Narain (Deft. 1) Shri Narain Raj Narain (Defdt. 2) Ganesh Narain (Defdt. 3) Govind Narain (Pltf. 1) Harish Narain (Pltf. 2) Jagdish Narain (Pltf. 3) Shakti Narain (Pltf. 4) THE other defendants 4 to 5 are tenants residing in the suit property. THE case of the plaintiffs is that Munshi Lakshmi Narain, who practised for a time at Ajmer and then shifted to Beawar, purchased the leasehold rights in those lands at an auction sale, for which he paid the part premium of Rs. 46/5/- on the date of auction. Later when the settlement was approved by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer, he paid the balance of the entire premium on the 7th of December, 1899 (vide Exs. P. 83 and P. 84), and the lease deeds were executed in his favour on the 31st of May, 1900, (vide Exs. P. 77 P. 81 ). He also obtained the sanction of the Municipality for construction of houses therein, and started constructions some time in May, 1901; and the constructions were completed by September, 1903 (vide Exs. P. 1 - p. 10 ). THE name of Munshi Lakshmi Narain was recorded in the Municipal records in respect of the suit lands, and he continued to pay the ground-rent for the same and exercised full rights of ownership thereon. Since Munshi Lakshmi Narain had been practising at Beawar, he allowed Munshi Shri Narain the father of the defendants 2 and 3, who was staying at Ajmer, to realise the house rent of the properties, and to manage the same under his instructions and on his behalf is his agent. On the death of Munshi Lakshmi Narain in 1927, the title of the lands and houses which were the self-acquisitions of their father devolved on the plaintiffs as his heirs, the defendants] having no interest therein. At the time of his death, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 were minors, while the first plaintiff Govind Narain had just attained majority, and was receiving education at Agra. Consequently Munshi Shri Narain, who acted as the plaintiffs' de facto guardian looked after their affairs, and managed their immovable properties, and dealt with the case etc. He, further, for and on behalf of the plaintiffs, used to realise the rent from the tenants occupying the houses in question, and send the same to the plaintiff from time to time. THE youngest brother Shakti Narain, plaintiff No. 4, attained majority on the 30th of September, 1943. Munshi Shri Narain suddenly died of heart failure on 27th November, 1942, and then the defendants started claiming certain rights of ownership in themselves in respect of the properties in question. THE plaintiffs then learnt on enquiry that in July, 1939, the late Munshi Shri Narain taking advantage of his position had got his name and that of the defendant 1 inserted in the Demand and Collection Register of the Municipality on furnishing wrong information to the Municipal authorities in response to the notices which were received by him from the Municipality on behalf of the heirs of the late Munshi Lakshmi Narain. In consequence of that mutation on the death of Munshi Shri Narain, his sons, the defendants 2 and 3, also got their names mutated in the Demand and Collection Register of the Municipality, and when the plaintiffs protested against the mutation of the names of those defendants, the parties were referred to civil Court. THE plaintiffs have, therefore, instituted the suit, impleading the tenants as well, and claiming to recover rent and damages from the defendants.

(3.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must, therefore, hold that both the lands as well as the houses built thereon were the self-acquisitions and separate properties of the plaintiffs' father, and that as such, subject to our decision on the point of blending, the defendants will have no interest therein.