ASHA RAM Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law and facts are involved except the different accommodations as suit properties, the judgment in this appeal (No. 11/90) shall govern all other appeals. Civil Suit No. 129/64 (Suit No. 67/81 new) for arrears of rent and damages in respect of the shop situated in Sadar Bazar, Balotra was filed by the plaintiffs Sunder Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 11/90 filed by Asha Ram and Second Appeal No. 79/90 filed by the tenants arise out of this civil suit. Civil Suit No. 146/64 (Civil Suit No. 69/81 new) for arrears of rent and possession of the shop was filed by Sunder Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 9/90 filed by Asha Ram arises out of that suit. Civil Suit No. 135/64 (Civil Suit No. 68/81 new) for recovery of rent and ejectment from Nohra situated in Balotra was filed by Sundar Bai and Aichuki Devi. Second Appeal No. 10/90 filed by Asha Ram and Second Appeal No. 78/90 filed by the tenants arise out of this civil suit.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the main controversy involved in these appeals the facts emerged on the material on record are summarised thus. One Megh Raj S/o Bhani Ram Agrawal, r/o Balotra had two wives. Megh Raj had two daughters Smt. Sundar Bai and Smt. Aichuki Devi who were the original plaintiffs (died during the pendency of the proceedings and Shiv Ratan and Sita Ram were brought on record as their legal representatives who are plaintiff -respondents in the appeal). Smt. Sunder Bai and Smt. Aichuki Devi were daughters of Megh Raj by his first wife. Megh Raj died on September 08, 1945. On July 01 1945 Megh Raj executed a will whereby he bequeathed all his property in favour of Smt. Muni Devi, his wife. Megh Raj had two brothers Jamna Das and Shambhu Ram. Appellant Asha Ram (in Appeals No. 9, 10 and 11 of 1978) is son of Jamna Das. After the death of Smt. Muni Devi on 17.02.55, escheat proceedings were started on the ground that she had died issueless. Asha Ram did not file any claim before the Collector, Banner in escheat proceedings. The Collector passed order under Section 6(7) of the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 directing the objector to establish their claims in the civil court. The daughters/plaintiffs preferred a revision before the Government against the decision of the Collector and by order dated November 27, 1975 (Annex. -4) the plaintiffs were held entitled to the property by the Government of Rajasthan and, consequently, the properties were released in plaintiffs' favour. As the tenants have failed to pay the rent to anybody after the death of Smt. Muni Devi the suits as aforementioned were filed.

(3.) IN the written -statement filed by the tenants (who are appellants in Second Appeals No. 78 and 79 of 1990), amongst other defence, it has been alleged that after the death of Smt. Muni Devi no person was legally entitled to recover rent from them and, therefore, the rent was not paid. The plaintiffs are not real daughters of Smt. Muni Devi but are daughters of Megh Raj by other wife. The plaintiffs are not the heirs of Megh Raj and Smt. Muni Bai. The real heir is Asha Ram son of the brother of Megh Raj. According to the custom prevalent in this part of the country (Marwar) the daughters could not inherit the property of their father in the presence of the collateral and thus the plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent and /or possession is liable to be dismissed.