GANESHI LAL Vs. RADHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these instant petitions have arisen out of the order dtd. 13/2/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tonk in Civil Suit No. 140/2000 (14/1996), whereby the suit for possession of room filed by respondent No. 1-Radha Devi under Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act was decreed, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order.

(2.) S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2015:-Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for possession under Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act relating to room which was fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. Respondent No. 1-Radha Devi did not have any locus to file the suit according to the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act because at that time, suit property was not in her possession. As per her case, Rajendra Prasad was in the possession of the suit property on 9/7/1995. It is also not clear that Radha Devi was claiming possession through Rajendra Prasad only. Rajendra Prasad alone could file the suit for possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Rajendra Prasad had lodged an FIR but after investigation, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Rajendra Prasad had not appeared in the witness box, so, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the trial court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per statement of Madan Mohan, he had orally gifted the disputed property to Radha Devi but as per the Transfer of Property Act, if value of the gift property is more than Rs.100.00, it should be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the trial court passed the order on the weakness of the defendants. It is a settled proposition of law that no decree can be passed on the weaknesses of the defendants. Plaintiff had to stand on its own legs.