MT KRISHNA VATI BABU Vs. MTGUNJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that a decree obtained by the appellants is not binding on her and for an injunction restraining the appellants from executing that decree.

(2.) The appellants case is that one Jhalia was a tenant at will of a certain house belonging to the appellants. On her death, the appellants settled it with Jhalia's sister Phulia and Ramkishun, the son of Mt. Gunjari, daughter of Phulia, as joint tenants. According to the appellants this was a tenancy at will. A suit was instituted to eject these tenants on the ground that they were not rendering service as potters to the appellants as they had agreed to do. While this suit was pending Phulia died. An application was made stating that Ramkishun was her legal representative and should be substituted in her place. The suit resulted in a decree for ejectment being passed in favour of the appellants. The present suit is by Gunjari, the daughter of Phulia, for a declaration that the decree is not binding on her and for an injunction to restrain the decree-holders from disturbing her possession by executing the decree.

(3.) The first Court negatived the plaintiff's claim that the tenancy of Phulia and Ramkishun was a permanent one and found that they wore mere tenants at will. In that view of the matter, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The appellate Court has held that it is not necessary in the circumstances of the case to decide whether the tenancy was a permanent one as claimed by the plaintiff or a mere tenancy at will as alleged by the appellants. The Court has taken the view that the plaintiff was a legal representative of her mother Phulia and that as there is no decree passed against her she is not bound by the decree and as she is in possession she is entitled to an injunction restraining the decree-holders from disturbing that possession in execution of their decree.