SATYA NARAIN Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gangapurcity, whereby the learned Judge has directed the parties to maintain status quo and has not directed that the rental amount collected from the tenant should be deposited in the court, the plaintiff-appellant has approached this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for declaration of a will of Chitarmal Kherapati as being forged. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he happens to be the adopted son of Chitarmal and the alleged will, in favour of Mahesh Chand, respondent No.1, is a forged document. On the other hand, Mahesh Chand, the respondent No.1, claims that the will is a genuine one. He further claims that according to the will, he has the title of the property. Therefore, he has the right to collect the rent. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-appellant claims that since the will is a forged one, therefore, Mahesh Chand's title to the property itself becomes questionable. Hence, his prayer before the learned Judge that during the pendency of the suit, the rental amount collected by Mahesh Chand should, in fact, be deposited in the court.

(3.) Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, has vehemently contended that once the learned trial court had come to the conclusion that prima facie the appellant has established his case that he is the adopted son of Chitarmal, it should have equally concluded that prima facie the will becomes questionable. Since the will is doubtful, the position taken by Mahesh Chand, respondent No.1, becomes questionable. Since the respondent No.1 is collecting and utilizing the rental amount, according to the learned counsel, it would have been in the interest of justice that the entire rental amount, being collected, should be deposited in the Court. After all, in case the plaintiff-appellant were to succeed in the suit, he will be entitled to the rental amount as well.