SUBHKARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the fathers name of Chandan Mal Duggar was Sadasukh (Everhappiness), but unfortunately Chandan mal Duggar is a cursed soul still breathing at the age of 98 years. He wanted to lead a happy married life like others and for that purpose he married a lady who died soon after the marriage. To fulfill his human desire to lead a happy married life, he married second time with the mother of Dhanraj Duggar but unfortunately again that happiness was also short-lived. The second wife died leaving Dhan Raj in a tender age of five years. Then apart from the desire to lead a happy married life, there arose the necessity for Chandanmal Duggar to give a proper parental care to the minor son Dhan Raj Duggar and, therefore he married again in the year 1925 with Smt. Manohar Devi. The facts and circumstances leading to this litigation go to show that the name Manohar Devi was only deceptive. This name can very well be attached to the property which is also known asT Manohar Building and which is situated in important commercial market of Jaipur known as Mirza Ismail Road. In this world self interest is always predominant. Manohar Devi, being the third wife when Chandanmal Duggar must have been approaching towards the old age, instead of thinking of giving parental care to Dhan Raj Duggar which might have been the expectation of Chandanmal Duggar, started caring for her own security in the event Chandanmal Duggar may pre-deceased her or Dhan Raj Duggar after attaining m majority may ignore her altogether and leave her in a destitute condition. Her apprehensions were as well true as this day we find that the posterity of Dhanraj Duggar is litigating for the property known as Manohar buildingTT. Smt. Manohar DeviT was a courageous lady as it appears from the facts on the record of the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. of the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur. In the first instance, in order to secure herself she could get a settlement deed in her favour from Chandanmal Duggar and his son from the second wife Dhanraj Duggar which is Ex, PA on the file of the Additional District Magistrate. The seeds of dissension were sown more than 43 years back on May 5, 1973. By Ex. 4 Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar settled the property situated at Mirza Ismail Road with Manohar Devi for life for her maintenance. Apart from this property, it was also agreed that an amount of Rs. 150 per month would be paid by the settlers to Manohar Devi for her maintenance and they will also look after the repairs of the building. They further undertook to bear to the extent of Rs. 10,000 expenses, which may be incurred in the expansion of that building. There was an important clause in Ex. 4 which provided that in case Smt. Manohar Devi incurred more than Rs. 10,000 in the expansion of Manohar Building, the expended portion of the building would be exclusive property of Smt. Manohar Devi with which Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar will have no concern. Since then Smt. Manohar Devi, despite being of a weaker sex, continuously fought to earn and was getting the due income from this property by continuously litigating with tenants in occupation.

(2.) Chandanmal Duggar and Dhanraj Duggar being bound by Ex. 4 could not do anything to get back the property to the family and, therefore, the minor sons of Dhanraj Duggar named Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Kumar alias Kushal Chand come forward and filed a civil suit No. 26/27 of 1960 in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City claiming a declaration that Ex. 4 was nun and void as against them. They also claimed delivery of possession of the property. That suit was vigorously contested by Smt. Manohar Devi and the suit filed by Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City on September 30, 1974. Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand filed a first appeal before the Court but the same was withdrawn by them on September 9, 1984 and thus the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City dated September 30, 1974 attained finality against them. Then for about 12 years there remained complete calm between Nirmal Kumar and Kushal Chand and Manohar Devi. To continue the narration, Manohar Devi having attained the old age of 68 years apprehended the inevitable death and still at that stage she was not inclined to reconcile either with her old husband or her step-son or step grand sons. She also suffered throughout her age by litigating in reletion to this property. Being bestowed with no issue, there came to her mind the philanthropic use of the property and by a trust-deed she purported to create a trust to be named as Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust. One can only thank to her at this stage that a lady who never thought of her husband and her step-child and who always litigated with those who occupied Manohar Building, while facing death thought of philanthropic purpose. A document has been produced to show that on April 23, 1981 Manohar Devi gave Manohar BuildingT to this trust in perpetuity for certain philanthropic purpose mention therein.

(3.) One could be hopeful with that the soul of Smt. Manohar Devi ultimately lying in an eternal peace would bring peace in the family and also end the litigations concerning Manohar Building. However, it seems that Manohar Building is as unfortunate as the posterity of Sada Sukh Duggar has been. The case of petitioner Sukh Karan in this petition is that on the second floor of Manohar Building there is a flat consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one Chandani, and attached latrine, bath and this portion was taken by him on rent on January 1, 1986 from trustee Pannalal of Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 excluding house tax The rent deed to that effect was also executed by the petitioner Subh Karan in favour of the trust on February 12, 1986 and he came in its possession on the New Year day of year 1986. He alleges that Chandanmal Duggar, his son Dhanraj Duggar and his grand sons started pressurising him to execute the rent note in respect of the above flat in their favour but the petitioner did not succumb to their pressure. Thereupon a false first information report was lodged by Kushal Chand on February 10, 1986 against him and as Chandanmal Duggar and his descendants were interfering in his lawful and peaceful possession of the flat, he had to file a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Additional Civil Judge. In that suit Subhkaran prayer for a declaration that he was a lawful tenant in respect of the disputed premises since January 1, 1986 and defendants therein had no right to interfere in his peaceful enjoyment. Along with that suit the petitioner filed application under 0.39, 2 C.P.C. read with section 151 C.P.C praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants in that suit. That application was partly allowed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City after hearing the parties by its order dated April 7, 1986 and Chandanmal Duggar and his descendants were restrained by a temporary injunction from disturbing his possession over the said premises otherwise than in accordance with law.