RAMLAL Vs. SHRI JANWARILAL ALIAS JOHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 15/12/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.36/2013 (CIS No.91/2014) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dtd. 17/9/2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No1. Beawar (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.113/02(55/87) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction, has been affirmed.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, "defendants") stating therein that the suit shop No.20 situated outside Chang Gate, Gandhi Chowk, Beawar, as described in Para No.1 of the plaint, was taken on rent by him on 24/10/1966 from the defendant No.2-Municipal Council, Beawar for a period of 5 years which was extended from time to time and lastly on 1/11/1981 for a period of 5 years. It was averred that possession of the entire suit shop along with its furniture and fitting was handed over by him to the defendant No.1 on 24/2/1982 executing a general power of attorney in his favour; but, since, the defendant No.1 failed to fulfill the purpose of the power of attorney, it was cancelled by the plaintiff vide a registered deed dtd. 20/10/1985. Apprehending that in the interregnum, a lease deed might have been executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1, a decree of declaration as to such lease deed, if any, being null and void, possession and permanent injunction was prayed for.

(3.) The defendant No.1 in his written statement, admitting that initially the subject premises were let out to the plaintiff, submitted that with the plaintiff's consent and knowledge, its lease deed was executed by the defendant No.2 in his favour on 24/2/1982 on a joint application and its possession was handed over to him for which he paid a consideration of Rs.38,500.00 to the plaintiff.