KARAM CHAND Vs. LABH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case Case No. 546/1987 dated 19. 7. 2001 and against the judgment and decree dated 10. 2. 2004 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 23/2001. THE trial Court passed the decree for eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the land-lord plaintiff-Labh Chand (now deceased ). THE appeal of the tenant-appellant was dismissed by the appellate Court and hence this second appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant took on rent certain properties from Thakur Vikram Singh. Thereafter, in the year 1980, i. e. on 14. 7. 1980 executed a fresh lease-deed in favour of Thakur Vikram Singh's daughter Miss Urvashi, who was minor in the year, 1980, therefore, the deed was executed through Miss Urvashi's natural guardian her mother Smt. Shobha Rani. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant defendant agreed to purchase the remaining rented premises from said Miss Urvashi through her natural guardian Smt. Shobha Rani by entering into an agreement on 13. 5. 1984 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance. Smt. Shobha Rani, on behalf of Miss Urvashi, executed a sale-deed on requisite stamps on 22. 5. 1984. In this sale-deed dated 22. 5. 1984, it was clearly mentioned that relationship between landlord Urvashi and the tenant-appellant come to an end and the appellant is now in possession of the rented premises as owner of the property. After signing the sale-deed on 22. 5. 1984, the vendor Smt. Shobha Rani, guardian of Miss Urvashi, did not turn up for registration of the document then the appellant-tenant immediately on the next day only, i. e. 23. 5. 1984, gave telegraphic notice to Smt. Shobha Rani for execution of the sale- deed. Instead of executing sale-deed for the property in question in favour of the tenant, Shobha Rani, on behalf of Urvashi, got the sale-deed registered on 24. 5. 1984 in favour of the plaintiffs. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, this deed was ante-dated and has been shown as executed on 19. 5. 1984. The appellant-tenant, therefore, filed suit (C. O. No. 42/1985) for specific performance of the contract on 1. 6. 1985 and also lodged criminal complaint against Shobha Rani, which was sent for investigation to the concerned police station and according to the tenant-appellant, cognizance was taken by the Court for the offences committed by Shobha Rani.

(3.) THE appeal was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. THE learned counsel for the respondents- landlord raised objection about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, i. e. one of the co-plaintiff in whose favour the decree for eviction was passed by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. After arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents on merits also, the appellant submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10,c. P. C. for impleading the said left out plaintiff in this appeal. It is stated that the plaintiff No. 2 was inadvertently not impleaded as party in this appeal and the mistake is bonafide mistake. THE appellant prayed that now the name of plaintiff No. 2 may be permitted to be mentioned in the appeal as respondent No. 2. THE appellant also submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27,cp. C. after completion of his arguments on merits of appeal and sought permission to produce the copy of the telegram dated 23. 5. 1984, which according to the plaintiffs, was sent to above Smt. Shobha Rani by defendant-tenant through his advocate when Smt. Shobha Rani did not turn up for registration of sale- deed in favour of defendant-appellant. By this telegram, the appellant-tenant informed Shobha Rani that she should reach to the office of Sub-Registrar at 11 a. m. (on 24. 5. 1984), otherwise the sale-deed will be presented for its registration before the Sub-Registrar obviously by the purchaser appellant-tenant.