RAGIQ KHAN Vs. KHAIRUNNISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant, defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 32/1994 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1 for mesne profits, eviction, possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit against the appellant defendant No.1 and defendant-respondent No. 2 for eviction, mesne profits, possession and injunction relating to the suit property, the description of which has been given in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. I was averred that she had purchased the suit property from defendant No. 2 through registered sale-deed dated 4.10.1993. Defendant No.2 has purchased the said property from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq son of Bundu Khan through registered sale-deed dated 11.11.1967. At the time of the said transaction, defendant No. 2 disclosed that defendant No.1 had been residing in the disputed property since May, 1987 on monthly rent of Rs. 550/- and had made payment of the rent till September, 1991. It was further alleged that till the date of filing of the suit, defendant No.1 had made payment of rent for total 26 months but thereafter he did not make payment of rent and had committed default. It was further pleaded that the defendant made material alterations in the disputed premises and also created nuisance regarding which details were given in paragraph No. 16 of the suit. The premises is required by her for her own personal bona fide need. It was then mentioned that the defendant had denied the factum of her being owner of the property. Hence, on the basis of the above mentioned grounds, she is entitled to a decree for eviction against defendant No. 1. In the alternative, the plaintiff also claimed relief that in case the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' is not found to be proved then on the basis of ownership, decree of possession be passed in her favour.

(3.) Appellant defendant No. 1 filed his written statement to the suit and denied the facts mentioned in the same. It was his case that since defendant No. 2 was not the owner of the disputed property he had no legal right to sell the disputed property to the plaintiff. In fact, Smt. Hafizan, mother of defendant No. 1 appellant and real elder sister of defendant No. 2 was the owner of the disputed property and she had purchased the same through defendant No.2 from Rafiq Khan @ Mohammad Rafiq Khan son of Bundu Khan. Defendant No. 2 kept the sale deed with him and after the death of Hafizan, defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property. He has also disputed the fact that he is the tenant in the disputed property. The grounds of ejectment mentioned in the suit are also denied.