RAM SARAN DAS Vs. CHHOTE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the house in dispute is not saleable in execution of money decrees in favour of defendants 1 and 2 against Gobind Prasad, defendant 3. The plaintiff, Chhote Lal, has acquired this property from defendant 4, Narain Das, who has been impleaded as a pro forma defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that this house originally belonged to one Baldeo Prasad deceased, who died some 26 or 27 years ago, and on his death his widow Mt. Shitabo took possession of it along with other properties as Hindu widow with limited rights. It is further alleged that Gobind Prasad was the brother of Mt. Shitabo, who wrongfully took possession of this house after her death but later on, viz., on 2 January, 1924, he relinquished it in favour of the plaintiff who entered into possession. The contesting defendants in their written statements, when referring to the allegations contained in the plaint, merely stated that it was admitted that Baldeo Prasad was dead and that Mt. Shitabo became the owner. They did not specifically and in express terms deny that Mt. Shitabo took possession of the estate as Hindu widow, nor did they allege that she acquired absolute estate under any gift or will of the deceased. They did, however, put forward the plea that Gobind Prasad, Mt. Shitabo's brother was the owner of the property in dispute under the will executed by the lady. At the trial the pleaders of the defendants admitted that the house in dispute was an the possession of the plaintiff, though they did not at first admit that he had been in possession in January 1924. Neither party produced any oral evidence and the case was finally disposed of on the documentary evidence as it stood and the suit was decreed.

(3.) It is clearly established that on 3 January 1924, before the attachment of this house in execution of the decrees in favour of defendants 1 and 2 took place, Gobind Prasad relinquished his rights in favour of Chhote Lal and put him in possession of this house. The original rent agreement is on the record, and there is no evidence to rebut it. The finding of the Court below that the plaintiff was in possession of the house before the attachment must, therefore, be accepted.