DHANPAT RAJ Vs. DEVICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the unsuccessful plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for recovery of arrears of rent for Svt. 2005 in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed by the trial court, the Additional Commissioner. Jodhpur confirming the same in first appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The case for the plaintiffs is that Devi Chand and Sayab Chand defendants were granted a lease of the land in dispute on 20. 6. 46 for a period of 16 years. The lease deed was duly registered. According to the lease deed, the defendants agreed to pay three kalsis of wheat as rent annually on the day of Baisakh Sudi 15. Subsequently on 4. 10. 48 both the defendants accompanied by Mangya and Bhima approached Shri Hansraj advocate brother of Dhanpat Raj plaintiff and told him that Mangya was prepared to pay 5 kalsis of rent as against three. Thereupon Hansraj got another lease deed executed by Mangya and the lease deed executed by Devi Chand and Sayab Chand was cancelled. The lease deed executed by Mangya was to be registered but somehow or other it could not be done. Bhima promised to have the lease deed delivered to the plaintiffs after registration. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants defrauded Hansraj Advocate by extending a promise for payment of enhanced rent as a result of which their lease deed was cancelled. According to the plaintiffs the liability for rent for Svt. 2005 of the defendant continued intact. The trial court held that the liability of the defendants Devichand and Sayabchand came to an end with the cancellation of the lease deed in accordance with an agreement arrived at between the parties. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld this view.