NARHARI HARI VAIDYA Vs. AMBABAI BALKRISHNA SANSARIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property, Ks. 330-8-0 for arrears of rent, and future rent at Ha. 10 per month until possession, alleging that the property was ancestral property of the plaintiff; that it was almost completely built by his father Hari; that at the time of Hari s death building materials to the extent of Its. 800 were left; that Hari died on the 16th July 1904; that after Hari s death the affairs of the minor plaintiff were looked after by other persons; that Aumiji this deceased father of the defendants undertook to complete the plaint house on condition that the building materials were to be used; that the house was to be kept in repairs out of rent; that Annaji incurred expense to the extent of .Rs. 100 to 150 in completing the house, that after Annaji s death in 1912 although plaintiffs guardian demanded possession, possession was not delivered.

(2.) The trial Court decreed that the defendants should put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint property; that the defendants should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 110-8-0 and interest on Es. 110-8-0 at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of decree till satisfaction, and that the defendants should pay rent at Rs. 6 per mensem to the plaintiff from institution of the suit till the happening first of any one of the three events mentioned in Order XX, Rule 12(1)(c) Court directed that the plaintiff should recover possession of the house on payment of Rs. 664-0-0 to the defendants.

(3.) The main question in "the suit is what was the amount spent by Annaji, the father of the defendants, in completing the building ? The defendants said that the amount was Rs. 730, and they relied upon Annaji s will and a memo of expenses prepared by Annaji which showed that Annaji had .spent that amount. It does not appear that any objection was taken in the trial Court to the admission of the will and the memo as evidence. The trial Judge held that the memo was a useless piece of evidence. There was nothing to support the version of the defendants that Rs. 730 were spent on the plaint house save the mention made in the will, and apparently the trial Judge did not rely upon the statement in the will.