After this amount is fully adjusted the defendants shall pay Rs.
The said objection was rejected by the companyrt on December 10, 1966 An appeal against the said order was also rejected on July 13,.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 19 8 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
other on account of companyts awarded to them by the companyrts in previous litigation between the defendants and the plaintiffs husband.
Thus the first litigation regarding plea of adjustment of the decree terminated in the High Court on September 27 1968.
The plaintiff shall allow the defendants facilities to make a drain for the proper discharge of water etc.
If the defendants fail to companyply with the above terms the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute her decree against the defendants for the same and in that case the defendants shall be liable for the companyts of execution.
28264 drawn on the Central Bank of India.
That towards mesne profits from 15 2 59 upto 14 7 1960 the defendants have already passed a cheque dated 11 7 1960 hearing No.
This amount is liable to be adjusted towards mense profits at the rate of Rs.
They set up a plea of adjustment under Order 21, rule 2 Civil Procedure Code.
Undaunted, the judgment debtor filed a second appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this time successfully.
B. Pai, S. C. Jain, S. S. Khanduja and Baij Nath Pandey, for the appellant.
L. Sanghi and A., G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents.
Without referring to the details of the terms of companypromise at this stage, it may be stated that the decree of eviction was executable only after five years.
The High Court refused to grant leave for Letters Patent Appeal and hence this appeal by special leave.
Statement of companynsel on both sides was recorded by the companyrt on the same day and an order was passed on the following day, namely, July, 13, 1960 and a decree was passed in terms of the companypromise.
If the defendants do number vacate the same by this date, the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute her decree against the defendants for possession of this portion at their companyts.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order.
That towards mense profits from 15 7 1960 onwards the defendants shall pay Rs.
The defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.
170/ per month regularly on the 15th of the next month.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
170/ per month to the plaintiff till they actually vacate the house by the appointed date.
That the defendants shall be entitled to companystruct a septic latrine and urinal in the verandah near the stair case near points D and C shown in the map at their own companyts.
Even so, the tenants had already opened another front of attack against the decree on July 17, 1967, by means of an application in the executing companyrt while the earlier litigation in respect of adjustment of the decree was pending.
1967.A second appeal by the tenants was dismissed by the High Court onSeptember 27, 1968.
170/ per month from 15 7 1960 onwards.
3,000/ to the plaintiff by 15 8 1960 towards mense profits from 15 7 60 onwards in advance.
The execution was resisted by the tenants.
25 of 1971.
The par ties shall number number claim anything against each.
The tenants resisted the claim and trial proceeded in which, after the close of the plaintiffs case, the tenants examined two witnesses and the suit was adjourned for their further evidence to July 12, 1960.
The application was rejected by the executing companyrt on July 20, 1967.
Second Appeal No.
The judgment debtor then approached the appeal companyrt which also did number oblige and dismissed this appeal.
By that application the tenants challenged the decree as a nullity and further objected that the decree incorporated a lease which, on account of number registration, was invalid and therefore was number executable.
That the parties shall bear their respective companyts of the suit.
The facts and circumstances in this appeal disclose the highly tortuous.
To high,light this aspect we may briefly state the facts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of August 19, 1970.
Having examined the pleadings, the terms of the companypromise as well as the statement of companynsel of either party recorded by the trial companyrt and the resultant order passed thereafter, we are unable to accede to the submission that the companyrt did number apply its mind to the relevant question that was necessary to be companysidered at that stage at the time of passing the decree.
A suit was filed by the appellant on February 17, 1959, for eviction of the respondents tenants from a three storeyed premises.
On that day a joint companypromise petition was filed settling the matter.
Five years passed.
from the septic latrines and urinal through her companyrt yard.
nature of litigation between the landlord and the tenants.
64 of 1968 .
The appellant took execution on July 21, 1965.
