KISHORI LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL; DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a litigation in respect of two shops in the town of Hathras. There were three sets of defendants originally impleaded, but we are really concerned only with the case as between the plaintiffs and the first set of defendants, namely Kanhaiya Lal and two members of his family. The suit related to two adjoining shops which may conveniently be spoken of as shop No. 1 and shop No. 2. The plaintiffs admitted that the defendants of the first party were in actual occupation of the shops, but alleged them to be in occupation of both shops as tenants. With regard to shop No. 1, these defendants admitted the plaintiff s title. They pleaded that they had as a matter of fact paid the rent due from them to date and so denied the plaintiffs right to any relief in respect of this particular shop. We are concerned, so far as the appeal before us goes, only with the question at issue between the parties about shop No. 2. The title of the plaintiffs in respect of this shop is simple. They are the reversioners of one Bohra Dwarka Das, who died in or about the year 1854 A.D. leaving him surviving two widows. One of those widows, Musammat Lachcho, survived the other and continued to represent the estate of her husband up to the time of her death in 1904. The title of Kanhaiya Lal and his co-defendants in respect of the shop in question may be set forth in this way. Harmukh Rai, father of Kanhaiya Lal, purchased this shop at auction on the 24th of July, 1901. The sale was held on a decree, dated the 29th of November, 1900, in a suit brought by one Kundan Lal against Kunj Lal and Duli Chand. These persons had made a mortgage of this shop in favour of Kundan Lal on the 7th of October, 1895. There can be no doubt that Harmukh Rai as auction purchaser thereby acquired the right, title and interest of Kunj Lal and Duli Chand in this shop No. 2. The question really in issue is what that title was. The court below has found in favour of the plaintiffs on the question of title and has overruled all the objections taken by the contesting defendants, except with regard to the alleged payment of rent on account of shop No. 1. The appeal of Kanhaiya Lal and his co- defendants is against the decree of the court below awarding to the plaintiffs possession of shop No. 2 with mesne profits. There are seven paragraphs in the memorandum of appeal to this Court. The first and the seventh of these are argumentative and general. The points taken in the remaining paragraphs are substantially four. (1) It is contended that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title as owners of the shop in question. (2) It is pleaded that there is some bar of limitation against the plaintiffs suit. (3) It is contended that the ownership of the shop in question had passed to Kunj Lal and Duli Chand, through whom the plaintiffs derived their title, by reason of valid transfers under circumstances to be presently considered. (4) It is pleaded that the position of the defendants appellants is that of bond fide purchasers for value and that in any case they are entitled to be compensated for expenditure incurred by them upon improvements. We may take up these points in order.

(2.) The Judgment then proceeded to discuss the evidence.

(3.) The whole of this evidence taken together seems to be quite sufficient to prove that Dwarka Das was the owner of shop No. 2 and to justify the inference that he continued to be the owner of the same up to the time of his death and was succeeded by his ?widow Musammat Lachcho.