SITA RAM Vs. GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the District Judge, bharatpur, remanding the suit under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P, C. after reversing the finding of the trial Court on the question of limitation.

(2.) GOVIND plaintiff filed the present suit on 8-4-63 against the 4 defendants tor the recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the grounds of default and personal necessity in respect of a building containing two shops and an upper storey. The building was originally owned by Ram Gopal father of Sitaram and Radhey Shyam defendants and grand-father of Kishori Shyam and Ram Babu defendants. Ram gopal executed a sale-deed of this property in favour of Ratanlal on 30-1-1933. On the same date Ram Gopal executed a rent-note in favour of Ratanlal taking the property on lease for a period of 3 years. This rent-note was not registered. On 19-9-38 Ratanlal sold the building to Gyasi Ram father of the present plaintiff. The case in the plaint is that Ram Gopal used to pay rent to Ratanlal after he had sold the property to the latter and to Gyasi Ram after Ratanlal had sold it. It was alleged that rent was paid upto 30-11-60 regularly but that it was not paid from 112-60. The suit was brought for the recovery of arrears of rent from 1-12-60 to 31-3-63.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants who alleged that the sale-deed in favour of Ratanlal was fictitious and was executed to save the property from creditors, that Ratanlal was a friend of Ram Gopal, that no rent was over paid to ratanlal or to Gyasi Ram or to Gyasi Ram's sons and grand-sons. It was admitted that Ram Gopal executed a rent-note in favour or Ratanlal. But it was alleged that the rent-note was also fictitious and was executed in order to make it appear that the sale-deed was genuine. It was asserted that Ram Gopal continued to be in possession of the property as owner and whenever rent was demanded from Ram gopal or his sons by Gyasi Ram the latter was told that Ram Gopal was the owner of the property and he had no right to recover any rent. The trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Is the suit within limitation? (2) Whether the suit premises are with the defendants on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 10? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rent for 28 months from 1-12-60 to 31-3-63 at Rs. 10 per month from the defendants? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to evict the defendants from the suit premises? both parties produced evidence on the whole case pleaded by them in the plaint and the written statement respectively. All the pleas raised in the pleadings will be taken to be covered by the above issues and a decision shall have to be given under the above 4 issues of all the pleas.