RAMA Vs. MAGAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Bhoori Bai filed a suit for specific -performance and injunction in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur seeking a decree to the effect that the suit properly as describe in paragraph 4 of the plaint measuring 46 X 4 feet to be used as passage be delivered to her from defendant No. 1 and further she may be allowed to construct a passage on the said land from North to South upto 56 feet. It was also prayed by her that the defendant may be restrained from creating any obstruction in the construction of 46 X 4 feet passage'. The plaintiff claimed arrears of damages of Rs. 300/ - from the defendant and further damages from 21.80 to the date of delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 5/ - per day.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as disclosed in the plaint are that in the city of Udaipur, there is a Market known as 'Bapu Bazar'. In the -said Market, there is a plot No. 7. In the South of the said plot, there is a shop, the boundaries of which are given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Plot No. 7 was of the ownership and in possession of defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 namely; Mohan Lal, Gulab Chand and Rekhab Lal. It is also evident from the averments made in the plaint that the suit premises measuring 46 x 4 feet.was. let -out by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 (Now heirs and' legal representatives of. deceased defendant No. I are on record as appellants) and defendant No. 2. by rent -note dated 1.6.69 on monthly rent of Rs. 180/ - per month. The Plaintiffs further case is that it was agreed upon between defendants. No. 1 and 2 that the premises measuring 46 X 4 feet which is a passage will be vacated by the tenant as and when the landlord of the shop needs' for the passage.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased -defendant No. 1 who have come up int Second Appeal before this Court. The defendant -appellants did not admit the boundaries of the land let -out to the defendants as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The defendants gave the different description in their written statement and denied the existence of the shop adjacent to the land in dispute and further existence of any passage as.a separate part.