LAWS(RAJ)-1986-3-12

MANNA LAL Vs. MOOL CHAND

Decided On March 21, 1986
MANNA LAL Appellant
V/S
MOOL CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Baran, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and reversing the decree passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Kota.

(2.) SMT . Kesar Bai was the owner and in possession of the suit house described in para 1 of the plaint, which was constructed by her husband Shri Bala Bux. Mst. Ramjanki Bai was the daughter of Mst. Kesar Bai, while Mool Chand and Bhag Chand, plaintiff respondents are the sons of Mst. Ramjanki Bai. Smt. Kesar Bai had no son and, therefore, she bequeathed this house to the plaintiff -respondents, by a registered Will (Ex. 1) dated August 7, 1965, and the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit premises on the death of Smt. Kesar Bai and since then, they have been in possession of the suit premises. It was alleged in the plaint that when the plaintiffs' father had gone to some other village, the defendant Came and illegally occupied two rooms in this house and fixed one pipe in front of one of the rooms. After the death of Smt. Kesar, the plaintiffs kept certain tenants who have been paying rent to the plaintiffs and since the defendant was trying to dispossess the plaintiffs' from the other portion of the suit house also, the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 15 -3 -1967, praying that the defendant be dispossessed from the portion which he was illegally occupying and that he be further restrained by granting a permanent injunction against him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit house was not built by Bala Bux, as alleged in the plaint, and that Bala Bux had sold the property which fell to his share; that the plaintiffs' never kept tenants in the disputed house and that the defendant did not illegally occupy the suit house, as alleged in the plaint, but was in possession in his own rights.