LADHURAM Vs. SURAJ BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Ladhuram, Rambilas and Mohanlal three of the defendants in a suit for a declaration and injunction against the plaintiff respondents Surajbux and Jagdish Narain. Mst. Narayani and Lakshmi Narain were also implea- ded as defendants but they have not appealed and have been impleaded in this appeal as respondents. The plaintiffs alleged that in village Karad, there is a pacca house with kaccha compound which is fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. In this house there was a room 'apqs' facing west and shown in red colour in the plan attached to the plaint. This room marked with capital letter 'a' on the plan had been in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs for a very long time since the time of their ancestors. In this room the plaintiffs' Moth was stored and the room was locked. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 sometime in February, 1947 put up their lock on the main gate of the house thus blocking the way of the plaintiffs to the room in dispute. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had asked the defendants several times to open up the lock of the main gate and not to obstruct the plaintiffs' way to the room in dispute. The defendants, however, did not listen to the plaintiffs and continued to obstruct their way to the said room. The plaintiffs prayed that they be declared owners in possession of the disputed room as well as of 448 Maunds 24 Seers of Moth stored therein, and the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' use of the disputed room either by locking up or by any other means. It was also prayea that the plaintiffs be declared joint owners of the chowk, staircase, Darichi and Tibari shown in white colour in the plan attached to the plaint.

(2.) OF the five defendants, the appellants Ladhu-ram, Rambilas and Mohanlal filed one written statement, Mst. Narayani filed another written statement and Lakshmi narain admitted the plaintiffs' claim. The appellants denied the plaintiffs' ownership or possession of the room in dispute. They also denied their ownership of the Moth in dispute. They averred that they were the exclusive owners of the room in dispute as well as the Moth and had been in possession of the room, in dispute for a very long time. Mst. Narayani also denied the plaintiffs' ownership or possession of the disputed room as well as the Moth, and pleaded that she alone was the exclusive owner of the entire house including the disputed room. She denied that any Moth belonging to the plaintiffs had been stored in the disputed room and said that the plaintiffs had no right of ingress and egress to and from the house in dispute.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, Phulera who tried the case framed four issues which when translated into English read as follows :