RAM LAL SAHU Vs. MTBIBI ZOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Letters Patent appeals by defendants 1 and 2 from the decision of "Wort J., in a second appeal arising out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents in the following circumstances.

(2.) On 4 October 1913, the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest had settled a piece of land with one Gajadhar Sahu for the purpose of erecting a shop and a house covered with tiles or a thatched roof at a rental of 4 annas per month or Rs. 3 per year. After the death of Gajadhar Sahu, his brother Bulakan sold the land with a house which had been constructed by Gajadhar upon it to Hira Sahu and Beni Sahu for a sum of Rs. 1500. On 17 September 1930 these persons sold the land and the house to the appellants Ramlal Sahu and Jugal Kishore Sahu for a sum of Rs. 6565. In 1931 the appellants demolished the old structure and began to construct a pucca house. This led to a dispute between them and the plaintiffs, and ultimately a notice under Section 144, Criminal P.C., was issued against them. After the expiry of the period during which the notice was in force the appellants again began to construct a pucca house and at the instance of the landlords a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal P.C. was started against him and his servants. Later on, after the matter had been fought up to the High Court, the parties entered into a compromise and on 12 January 1932 a petition was filed on behalf of the appellants informing the Court that they would construct a tiled house on the disputed land and would not construct a house with a pucca roof. On 27 January 1932, another petition was filed by the defendant to the following effect: That your petitioner, the second party, had already constructed a tiled house according to the terms of the petition dated 11 January 1932. Now the petitioner Aquif Hussain, first party, has got no objection to it. Therefore it is prayed that the case may be struck off. In support of this signatures of both the parties and their mokhtears have been put on this petition.

(3.) On this petition the case was dismissed, but afterwards the plaintiffs discovered that the appellants had secretly constructed a pucca roof underneath the tiled roof, raised the walls of the house and opened a window on the eastern side of the house and so they sent a registered notice to the appellants determining the tenancy and calling upon them to quit the land and put the plaintiffs in possession thereof. As the appellants failed to comply with the terms of the notice, the plaintiffs brought two suits which were registered as Suit No. 80/33 and Suit No. 104/33. In Suit No. 80/33 the plaintiffs claimed a decree for one-fourth of the consideration money which had been paid by Ramlal Sahu and Jugal Kishore Sahu to their vendors on the ground that one of the terms of the lease was that in the event of the land being transferred such a sum would be recoverable by the landlord. In Suit No. 104/33, which has given rise to this appeal, the plaintiffs asked for the ejectment of the appellants (defendants 1 and 2) from the disputed land and in the alternative for an order directing them to remove the pucca roof and to close the window towards the east. The trial Court decreed Suit No. 80 and in Suit No. 104 directed the removal of the pucca roof and the closing of the window, but did not grant the prayer for ejectment. The decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court but, on second appeal, Wort J. decreed ejectment. As two second appeals had been filed in the High Court one by the plaintiffs and the other by defendants 1 and 2 the latter had to prefer two appeals under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Wort J. also.