KULSUM-UN-NISSA Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of remand, Musammat Kulsum-un-nissa brought a suit in the court of the Munsif to eject the defendant on the allegation that the defendant was a tenant of the house in which he lived, under a registered lease executed by the predecessor-in-title of the defendant, in favour of the husband of the plaintiff, who was the zamindar of the village. The lease was executed in the year 1887, and the plaintiff stated that from that date down till some four years before the suit, the original lessee and his successors had been paying rent according to the lease; that some four years ago the defendant joined a general conspiracy in the village and refused to pay further rent. The suit was for ejectment and for arrears of rent for three years. The defence to the suit was that the defendant had never executed any lease; that the house had been constructed for the defendant, who is a Brahman, by his clients and that he and his ancestors had been in possession for 100 years; that no rent had ever been paid and that his possession had been adverse. Further, that the suit was barred because the notice required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been duly given. On these pleadings, the learned Munsif fixed five issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute and is the plaintiff entitled to get possession?

(2.) Whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff, and is the plaintiff entitled to get rent and interest?

(3.) Whether the suit is barred by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?