RAM SINGH Vs. JODHPUR ZILA MAHESHWARI SAMAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Ram Singh s/o Poona Ram Tak, who is now represented by his legal representatives after his death during the pendency of this appeal by Shri Ghanshyam Singh & others had filed the present first appeal under Section 96 CPC in this Court on 1/4/1992 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction and ejectment dated 29.2.1992 passed in civil suit No. 283/85 filed by Jodhpur Zila Maheshwari Samaj, registered society through its President Shri Shanker Lal Soni S/o Heeralal ji by caste Soni Maheshwari against the defendant Uda Ram S/o Poona Ram - brother of present appellant-defendant - Ram Singh s/o Poona Ram & defendant appellant himself in respect of suit premises, a plot of land with construction of a room and 'Saal'. The learned trial Court in said suit after framing 18 issues initially on 8.1.1987 and additional three issues on 11.2.1988 decreed the suit against the defendant No. 1 Udaram on the ground of default in payment of rent and against defendant No. 2 - Ram Singh on the basis of title of the suit property for ejectment by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.2.1992 and being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant No. 2 - Ram Singh alone filed the present appeal, whereas, the defendant No. 1 Uda Ram did not file any appeal and he also remained ex-parte before the learned trial Court after filing his written statement to the suit. The plaintiff set up its case before the learned trial court that the suit property in question shown in the map produced with the plaint as Ex. 5 measuring 1355.33 sq. yds. was purchased by Shri Shanker Lal Soni from Manohar Singh as Managing Director of Jodhana Real Estate Development Company owned by the erstwhile Royal family of Jodhpur by registered sale deed dated 26.4.1972, Ex. 3, and thereafter by relinquishment deed dated 23.12.1972 Ex. 4, said Shri Shanker Lal gave the said property to the plaintiff-Jodhpur Zila Maheshwari Samaj for the purpose of constructing a school. In the said sale deed dated 26.4.1972 itself, it was mentioned that on the portion of said property there were four tenants and one of them was defendant No. 1, Uda Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 8/- p.m. and in old 'Tabelas' three tenants; Shri Prithvi Singh, Shri Bhawani Singh and Shri Deep Singh were tenants at Rs. 4/- p.m. The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1- Uda Ram gave rent for the portion of the plot of land in question as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 8/- p.m. upto December, 1980 to the Secretary of the plaintiff Society, Shri Damodar Lal Bang and, thereafter, he did not pay any rent and sublet the same to his brother Ram Singh - present appellant. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed possession of the suit land from the defendant No. 2 - Ram Singh on the basis of title and on the basis default in payment of rent, bona-fide need and subletting from defendant No. 1 Uda Ram.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 - Uda Ram admitted in his written statement that he was tenant of the said plot of land of Ex. Ruler, Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji but he denied purchase of the property by the plaintiff Society. He also claimed adverse possession on the said plot of land and claimed that it was in his possession for more than 12 years without any disturbance. Defendant No. 2, Ram Singh, the present appellant, who is now represented by his legal representatives, denied the factum of purchase of properly by Shanker Lal and Its further relinquishment in favour of plaintiff Society on 23.12.1972 and claimed that the said property was infact purchased by his father Poona Ram in his name for Rs. 199/- by a sale deed dated 9.2.1931, which was given by Will by one Jubeda on 20.1.1931 in favour of Anwar Ali Khan & Faijyaab Khan and, therefore, defendant No. 2 was in possession of the suit land ever since then in 1931 when he was nine years of age.

(3.) In the alternatively, he also claimed adverse possession over the said suit land and he submitted before the learned trial court that on account of dispute between the two brothers, both the defendants, the defendant No. 1 had deliberately given written statement admitting himself to be the tenant of Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji.