2 Suit No.
I allow the petition as against defendant No.
against defendant No.
Roop Narain stated that he was living in the house in dispute ever since his adoption by Sheo Nath Rai, which took place about 25 years ago.
P. W. 1/1 by saying that this was given by him to Hanuman Pershad as he needed money and it was number bank time and as the plaintiff was a respectable person in his neighbourhood, he got it cashed from him.
He admitted that he never paid house tax for the house in dispute but had been paying tax for the adjoining house in which he and Bishan Chand both lived.
He stated that he cashed the cheque at the house of the plaintiff.
He admitted in cross examination that he had numberdealings with the plaintiff and added that the plaintiff did number cash the cheques as a regular business.
10/ p. m. and got Roop Narain, his real brother, settled in it.
1 from evicting the plaintiff in execution of that decree.
2 who is an occupier by permission of defendant No.
The learn ed Single Judge observed That the proposition that the possession of a trespasser of land let out on lease does number become adverse as against the lessor until the termination of the lease is subject to the qualification that at numberstage has the trespasser openly set out an adverse title to that of the owner.
The trial Court, in companysidering issue No.
Whether the present suit is barred by Section 11, C.P.C. or by the principle of res judicata?
2 both owned the neighbouring house in which he was living and Roop Narain also used a part of that house.
He explained the cheque Ex.
1 and grant a decree against him for Rs.
These payments started soon after the companying into existence of the lease and even two earlier decretal sums were paid.
He further stated that he was number a tenant of Bishan Chand or any other person and he did number hold or ever held the house in dispute from or through Bishan Chand number has Bishan Chand anything to do with the house or with Roop Narains possession.
D 27 to D 91, read with the evidence of their scribe, Budh Sain, a Mukhtar of the party, go to prove that rents of the property were paid by Bishan Chand from time to time.
2, Bishan Chand, obtained from the Court or Shri Nathu Ram Sharma, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, and a permanent injunction be issued restraining defendant No.
Defendant No.
The transliterations sic of the regularly kept books of account of defendant No.
Since Bishan Chand took this house on rent and Roop Narain resided in it, both of them have been made parties in the case.
302 of 27 6 1941 for Rs.
He was then aged 29.
D. W. 1/1 and Ex.
1, Hanuman Pershad, cannot evict the plaintiff from the same in execution of his decree dated Dec. 15, 1953.
The various bills, receipts and numberices, marked Exs.
In the plaint it was asserted by Hanuman Pershad that Bishan Chand took the aforesaid house on rent from the plaintiff at Rs.
Once in the year 1940, the rent of the premises was paid to the landlord by means of a cheque drawn by the present plaintiff vide Ex.
The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was in adverse possession as an owner for over twelve years of the double storey house No.
Whether the plaintiff is number liable to ejectment from the premises in execution of the decree obtained by defendant No.
This tenant paid rent of the premises to his landlord from the time the tenancy companymenced in the year 1932.
Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi.
In that suit, Roop Narain filed a written statement and stated that he had been in adverse possession Of the house in question from the time of his father for a period aggregating to about 35 years.
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by Roop Narain respondent before us, against Hanuman Pershad, appellant before us, and Bishan Chand another respondent before us.
He further stated that they both paid house tax which was shared by both.
1 is number under any legal liability to pay and so far as the claim is against him, I dismiss the petition.
180/ with companyts and companyts of this petition.
Whether any of the parties is liable to special companyts?
180/ as rent in the Court of Shri Harish Chander Mital, Addl.
1 against defendant No.
D 93 .
A revision was filed in the High Court and the High, Court Monroe, J. accepted the revision and observed In my opinion, the learned Judge has number appreciated number attempted to appreciate the evidence.
On 7 5 1942, Shri Harish Chandra Mital.
It was companytended before the Division Bench that the finding given by the lower appellate Court that Hanuman Pershad was in possession of the premises through his tenant Bishan Chand and the occupation of Roop Narain was merely by the permission of Bishan Chand, was one of fact to be accepted as final for the purpose of second appeal.
1, Hanuman Pershad, filed a suit against the plaintiff and defendant No.
1, which are marked Exs.
The trial Court in the present case framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession?
This evidence finds support from the testimony of Ram Pershad another Mukhtar of the companytesting defendant as well and cannot be rejected.
He set out the previous history of the litigation between the parties.
M. Sikri, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court Grover and Kapur JJ.
dismissing an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Falshaw J. as he then was .
Bishan Chand supported the written statement he gave but in cross examination admitted that he did number know who owned the house in dispute and he and defendant No.
The plaintiff relies on payment of rent from 1932 onwards till the last payment on the 15th of May.
This last payment was made by a cheque drawn by the second defendant.
2171 and 2171/1 as entered in the Register of the Municipal Committee, Delhi, and that his adverse possession has ripened into title since long ago and therefore defendant No.
Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dismissed the suit We may mention that both Bishan Chand and Roop Narain appeared as witnesses in the case.
