PREMLATA PARIHAR Vs. R L PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 28. 4. 1. 999. The petitioner has challenged certain portions of the order and she has herself argued the matter. Shri Mahesh Parihar, respondent No. 4, has not appeared though served while respondents No. 1 to 3 are represented through their counsel Shri J. Gehlot who has argued on behalf of these respondents.

(2.) THE controversy is very short. Petitioner-Premlata is an unmarried daughter of Ratanlal, respondent No. 1. She was living in a house situated in Pipli ka Chowk, Nagauri Mohalla, Jodhpur. THE house belongs to her grand father. She has rights in the property. She had exclusive possession of a room and kitchen in ground floor as also on a room on the first floor. THE petitioner has been in service and till 1993 used to send money to the respondents No. 1 to 3 and also used to spend money in order to maintain the property. THE respondents thereafter stopped accepting the money with the fear that if they continued to accept, the petitioner may claim the house. THEy wanted to dispossess her and ultimately in August, 1996 respondents No. 2 & 3 gave beatings to her and turned her out. Sec. 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act defines maintenance which includes residence. According to the petitioner the father was obliged to maintain her u/s. 20 (3) of the said Act and, therefore, she was entitled to stay in the house. She wanted a relief that she may continue her possession in the ancestral house till she marries. This petition was later on amended and her prayer is that possession on the property be restored and it may be ordered that she may not be thereafter dispossessed. THE petitioner has been resisted on various grounds.

(3.) THE citation relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-Shreenath & Anr. 's (supra) lays down that in Rule 97 expression `any person' will include any person connected with the decree or any person holding independent right. He has not to go for a fresh suit for adjudication and u/o. 21, R. 97 CPC objection will be taken by a person holding possession on his own right. He will not have to face the dispossession. Mahesh Parihar, as admitted by the respondents No. 1 to 3, is a tenant in the property. He has filed a suit that he may not be dispossessed without due process of law and obtained stay from a competent Court. His claim has to be decided on merits in this case. It is something different that the learned District Judge may come to the conclusion whether he has jurisdiction to decide the main petition of Smt. Premlata or not. But the claim of Mahesh Parihar has to be investigated.