MADHO LAL Vs. LAL BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit in the trial Court for ejectment of the defendant from the land in suit and for the recovery of Rs. 12 as mesne profits on the allegations that the defendant who had been occupying the land in suit as a lessee had denied his title to the land as a landlord and this denial had entailed a forfeiture. The defendant resisted the claim and contended that he had not denied the title of the plaintiff as landlord which would put an end to the lease in accordance with the provisions of. Rule 111, T.P. Act. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that there had been a denial by the defendant of the plaintiff's right as landlord in the land in suit, and therefore the plaintiff's claim for ejectment was dismissed. The present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the Court below. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant to recover the zamindari dues called parjoet in 1925. The plaintift's case was that in that suit the defendant denied his title to the land and it was that, denial which according to him had caused a forfeiture of the tenancy. That suit was decreed against the defendant. After the decision of that suit the plaintiff instituted the present suit in 1928 which has given rise to this appeal. The statements in which, according to the plaintiff, there was a denial of his title by the defendant were made in the aforesaid case.

(2.) The question as to whether or no there was a denial of the title of the plaintiff depends on the interpretation to be placed on the written, statement and the statement made by the defendant as a witness. So far as the written statement which the defendant had filed in the former case is concerned, I am of opinion that it does not contain any clear denial of the title of the plaintiff as landlord. In para. 1 of the plaint in that case the plaintiff had asserted his title claiming to be the landlord of the land in suit. The defendant in reply stated that "para. 1 of the plaint was not admitted, as it was not known." From this it cannot be inferred that there was an express denial in clear and unambiguous terms of the title of the plaintiff. As regards para. 3 of the written statement the same remarks apply. All that the defendant said in this para. 3 was that the ground rent had never been paid. In para. 1 of the additional pleas the defendant stated: No document stipulating ground rent or proof of the contract stipulating payment of ground rent in respect of the site of the house owned and possessed by this defendant has been mentioned in the plaint. Under the circumstances the frame of the suit is incorrect and the suit, as it stands, as against this defendant, is unfit to proceed.

(3.) In paras. 2 and 3 of the written statement the defendant contended that the plaintiff could not realize the rent so long as he did not prove his right to realize the same. The statemet made by the defendant as a witness on 30 November 1925 however stands on a different footing. In this statement at one place the defendant states in clear terms that the land occupied by him does not carry ground rent. Then further on he says: The land never carried any rent.... None but myself had the right to this land. I am not the tenant of any one.