SHEO NARAIN ALIES SAON Vs. JANKI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 C. P. C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22. 1. 1994, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 3/91 (4/91), by which he accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction by setting-aside the judgment and decree dated 8. 3. 1991, passed by learned Additional Munsif, Sikar, in civil suit No. 95/1987.

(2.) THE brief relevant facts of the case are that the plain tiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellant, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against this decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, vide his judgment and decree dated 22. 1. 1994, and the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction was decreed on the ground that the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs. This decree has been challenged in this appeal by the defendant-appellant.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and various judgment cited at Bar by the counsel for the parties. It is true that the suit for eviction was not based on the ground of denial of title because title of the plaintiffs for the first time was denied in the written statement. The ground of denial of title of the plaintiffs was taken in appeal with the leave of the Court. The ground is based on the admission of the defendant in his written statement and as such the defendant- appellant can not be said to be prejudiced. In such circum stances, even if there was no plea in the plaint and no specific issue was framed on the point of denial of title, still the court was justified in passing a decree of eviction on the ground of denial of title as held by this court in Lallu Narayan's case (supra ). In view of this, the first submission of the counsel for the appellant has no merits and deserves to be rejected.