KISANCHANDRA Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of First Appeal No. 60-B of 1925. In order to understand the facts correctly it is necessary to give the following genealogical tree: Puranmal __________________|_________________ | | | Ramgopal Hargopal Chimniram | | | Ghanshamdas Ramlal, Nathmal & others | Plff. Kisanchand, | Deft. 1 | Murlidhar, P. W. 6

(2.) PURANMAL owned the family firm known as " Mahanandram Puranmal" and " Puranmal Premsukhdas" was the name of a branch of that main firm; whereas the main firm had its business at Hyderabad Deccan, this branch firm:; did its business at Amraoti through its wahiwatdar and munim byname Shri ramdas. This branch firm acquired two-houses' in suit at Amraoti bearing Municipal Nos. 3084 and 3087 prior to 1872. The aforesaid munim in charge of the Amraoti branch sold the two houses to a person doing business under the name and style of the firm of Ghanshamdas Chironjilal, owner Ghanshamdas of Hyderabad then residing at Amraoti, as per sale-deed dated 7th February 1876, of which Ex. 1 D 2 is a certified copy. According to the version given by plaintiff, the houses were orally repurchased from the vendee and were in the possession of the family but that since 1903-04, as the result of a family arrangement, they were allotted to his share. As defendant; Kisanchand agreed to manage this house property at Amraoti for plaintiff, the latter assigned to the former by way of remuneration a 1 anna 9 pies share therein and thus retained 14 annas 3 pies for himself in each of the two houses, The plaintiff's case is that, since February 1924, defendant 1 begin to set up an exclusive title to the two houses in suit in collusion with defendant 2. The two houses being in the occupation of different lessees, two separate suits, Nos. 14 and 15 of 1924, were; instituted in the Court of the Addl. Dist. Judge, Amraoti, for recovery of joint possession to the extent of 14 annas 3 pies share in each.

(3.) WHILE , according to plaintiff, Samirmal defendant 2, was defendant 1's agent defendant 1 urged that he ceased to be his agent from 12th June 1921, but that he occupied the premises as his tenant, and further that he had instituted a suit, No. 110/1923, against the said Samirmal in the Court of the 2nd Class Subordinate Judge No. 1, Amraoti, for his ejectment and for recovery of rent of first floor of house No. 3087; that similarly one Miss A. Kansingh was a tenant of the upper storeys of the two houses Nos. 3084 and 3087 and was sued by him for ejectment and recovery of rent, and a decree was obtained against her; that Samirmal acted as a mukhtyar of Miss A. Kansingh in the litigation and that he (Samirmal) did not want to vacate the houses and therefore collusively set up the present plaintiff to prefer this claim.