LALCHAND Vs. BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Lalchand sued the defendant Bahadur in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Class, Bhandara, for Rs. 71-5-0, alleged to be due to him on account of rent of a house let to defendant on 6th March 1918. He based his claim on a rent-note (P. 2) of the date named. Defendant's case was that he himself owned the house and that the rent-note was bogus. Defendant had been surety for a loan taken by one Chotoo from Tikaram of Bhandara, the latter obtained a decree against principal and surety, and defendant's house was taken in execution of the decree, put up in auction and purchased by Nasim Khan, agent of Tikaram. Defendant owed money to Tikaram on a mortgage of the house and was in debt elsewhere as well. Tikaram and Nasim Khan were willing that defendant should re-buy the house on condition he paid up the mortgage debt and the price paid by Nasim Khan at the auction. As plaintiff was then an intimate friend of defendant, the former's name was shown as vendee in order to defeat the claims of other creditors. Defendant all through remained in possession of the house: the rent-note was merely executed as a safeguard against any other creditor attaching the house. Lalchand, plaintiff, had changed his attitude and made a false claim on the rent-note. Other incidental pleas were offered by both parties, which are not sufficiently clear from the judgments of the two lower Courts.

(2.) THE Subordinate Judge held that the payment of the mortgage amount, the continuous possession of defendant, the repairs made by him, the entries in the municipal record, the non-recovery of rent from defendant, and the recent friction between plaintiff and defendant, all pointed to the sale in plaintiff's favour being a benami and bogus transaction. He accordingly dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appealed and the Additional District Judge, Bhandara, was of opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was correct. The Judge of the lower appellate Court, in this connexion, subjected the evidence to a close and careful scrutiny and came to the conclusion that the sale in plaintiff's favour was a benami one. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) IT has again been urged, (cf. p. 3,) that it was plaintiff who repaid the Rs. 203 towards Tikaram's mortgage. Even if this were so, as a consequence of some arrangement between plaintiff and defendant, there was ample other evidence on record to justify the concurrent finding of both Courts as to the benami nature of the main transaction and there is no room for interference in this respect by this Court on second appeal.