MULA Vs. MANDIR SHRI SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEALS Nos. 23 and 37 of 1957 arise out of an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur and will be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PUT briefly the facts are that Shri Narain Dass manager of the temple of Shri Sitaramji Maharaj situated in Balwari Tehsil Rewari brought a suit against Mula and three others for recovery of rent for Svt. year 2008, 2009 and 2010 amounting to Rs. 1289/8/- and ejectment from Khasra Nos. 413 and 412 of village Mehtavas on the basis of a Kabuliyat alleged to have been executed on Jeth Badi 12, Svt. 2008. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants were admitted as tenants of the land in dispute through the kabuliyat referred to above, that they agreed to pay 67 Mds. grain as annual rent, that the defendants made defaults in payment of rent for all the three Svt. years 2008 to 2010, that the plaintiff was entitled to get Rs. 856/- as arrears of rent for Svt. 2008 and Rs. 433/8/- for Svt. years 2009 and 2010 that the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 were not applicable to the case and that the defendants were liable to be ejected from the holding besides being liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed. Mula defendant contested this claim with the plea that the rents were not in arrears, that the tenancy was not created in Svt. 2008 but was of an old standing, that the claim as stated in the plaint was untenable in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act and Produce Rent Regulation Act, that on 23 6-56 the parties mutually adjusted their claims whereby the loan outstanding against the plaintiff and the arrears of rent were agreed to be mutually wiping off one another and that rent for Svt. 2010 (Rs. 184/) was deposited in the tehsil treasury. The trial court framed the following issues in the suit; - (1) Did the defendants cultivate the land in Svt. 2008 on a rent of 67 Mds. of grain? Were Durjan and Ghisa also joint in this cultivation? (2) Did the defendants not pay Rs. 1289/8/- to the plaintiff? (3) Did the plaintiff after the institution of the suit agreed on 23. 6. 54 to the adjustment of a loan of Rs. 640/ outstanding against him and did he execute a document clearing the dues. (4) Did the defendants deposit Rs. 184/- in the State Treasury? and (5) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled The plaintiff produced the Kabuliyat Ex, P. 1, a copy of Khasra Girdawari for Svt. 2005 (Ex. P. 2) and a copy of the Khasra Girdawari for Svt. 2008, 2009 and 2010 (Ex. P. 3) Jaimal Singh, Mata Deen, Mohan and Fateh Singh were examined as oral witnesses by the plaintiff The defendant produced the document alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff on 23-6 54, (Ex, D 1 ). Chander and Devkaran besides Mula himself were examined as witnesses for the defendants. The trial court decided all the issues against the defendants and decreed the plaintiffs suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Mula went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who held that the document Ex. D. 1 was binding upon the parties as it represented the mutual adjustment, and that the parties were prepared to abide by its terms. He accordingly allowed the appeal in part and modified the trial courts decree in the manner that the portion relating to arrears of rent was set aside and that directing ejectment was confirmed. Both the parties have filed separate appeals before us. Appeal No. 23 has been filed by Mula and his prayer is that the suit brought by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with costs. Appeal No. 37 has been filed by Mahant Shri Narain Dass on behalf of the temple and the prayer is that the decree passed against the defendant should include the arrears amounting to Rs. 1289/8/- as well. As both the appeals give rise to common questions of law and fact they will be determined by this Judgment.