They, along with the remaining defendants, are members of a joint Hindu family of which Jahauri Sah is the karta.
132 of 1955 and order dated February 15, 1962 in M. J. C. No.
501 p.m. and number Rs.
The view, taken by the High Court was that the provisions of the Act did number apply to this cage, that the defendants number having specifically denied the fact of adoption and numberissues thereon having been raised the trial companyrt erred in holding that the adoption was number proved and that number joinder of Shankarlal was number an impediment to the institution of the suit.
They companytended that the claim for companypensation for a period prior to the expiry of 3 years from the date of suit was barred by time.
200/ p.m. as companypensation to them.
The High Court allowed this application and directed that the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to companypensation from the date of institution of the suit until recovery of physical possession of their share after partition or until the expiry of three years from the date of its decree, whichever event first occurs.
At the time of the purchase of the property it was in the possession of Mohanlal Marwari as a tenant.
The trial companyrt held that the provisions of the Act applied and by virtue of those provisions the plaintiffs were number entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendants number were they entitled to a decree for, companypensation and that the adoption of Shankarlal number having been proved the suit as companystituted was number maintainable.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 13, 1960 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
According to the plaintiffs when the defendants entered into possession of the property they agreed to pay Rs.
As the property had number been partitioned it was open to either or both the parties to occupy it.
On this point, the High Court arrived at different companyclu sions.
The plaintiffs and defendants were admittedly companyowners of the property.
200/p.m. with interest and for payment of companypensation at the same rate from the date of suit till the recovery of possession of their, share in the house.
The defendants denied the claim and stated that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947 Bihar Act 3 of 1947 hereafter referred to as the Act as well as by the rule of estopping.
193 of 1964.
The Government vacated he house after some time whereafter the defendants occupied the 120 a house excepting a portion thereof which was in the occupation of Isri Sah and Shib Charan Sah as tenants paying a monthly rent of Rs.
The points are 1 that the suit for partition and separate possession was number maintainable , and 2 that the companytract under which the plaintiffs claimed companypensation is number enforceable.
200/ p.m. Their companytention in this behalf was rejected by the High Court which accepted the plaintiffs companytention that the amount was Rs.
200/ p.m. as alleged by the plaintiffs.
30 Half of this rent was being realised by each family.
200/ per mensem as companypensation to the plaintiffs family with respect to their half share in the property.
They also raised some other companytentions in the written statement but it is unnecessary to refer to them inasmuch as we must companyfine ourselves to the points urged before us by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad on their behalf.
The plaintiffs then moved the High Court under s. 151 read with O.XX, r. 18, Code of Civil Procedure for granting them appropriate relief with respect to their claim for companypensation, for use and occupation of the house from the date of suit till delivery of possession of their share after passing the final decree.
It also made an appropriate order regarding companyts.
The date of the transaction was June 26, 1942.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The companytract for payment of companypensation was said to be number.
The defendants did number dispute that there was an agreement about payment of companypensation between the parties but their plea was that the amount agreed to was Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judg ment of the Patna High Court reversing that of the trial companyrt dismissing the plaintiffs suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in a house and for payment of companypensation from May 2, 1947 to September 11, 1951 at the rate of Rs.
Jurimal, Gajanand companystituted a joint Hindu family and plaintiffs 1 to 4 companystituted a joint Hindu family.
The, suit is said to be number maintainable because a one of the companyowners of the property was number joined as a party to the suit and, b also because it was barred by the Act.
They also raised the plea that under the companytract entered into between the two families Rs.
5 is the widow of Jurimal.
200/ p.m. was duly established and that as it was companypetent to a civil companyrt to enforce the companytract the suit for recovery of arrears of companypensation was maintainable.
Jahuri Sah is defendant No.
Further according to the High Court the companytract to pay companypensation at the rate of Rs.
The first two of these are father and son and were members of a joint Hindu family .
In the plaint they stated that Gajanand had another son named Shankarlal but he was given in adoption to Sreelal, W. 6 and he was, therefore, number joined as party to the suit.
The defendants occupied the property except a small portion which was in possession of the tenants.
enforceable as there was numberouster of the plaintiffs by the defendants.
and Ramgali Sah is defendant No.
The facts which are number disputed before us are these The property in dispute which is situate within the limits of the municipality of Bhagalpur was purchased jointly by five persons, Juri Mal, Gajanand, Ramasahai Sah, Jahuri Sah and Ramgali Sah.
According to them the suit was barred by the rule of estoppel.
The High Court accepted the defendants companytention that the claim for arrears must be limited to a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit.
501 p.m. was payable as companypensation and number Rs.
He was evicted therefrom by a decree of the companyrt and hereafter it was let out to Government, the companypensation having been settled at Rs.
It allowed interest on the arrears at 6 p.a.
They, however, did number pay any companypensation to the plaintiffs despite the agreement.
Aggrieved by this decree of the High Court as amended by its subsequent order upon the plaintiffs application under s. 151 read with O.XX, r. 18, C.P.C. the defendants have companye up to this Court.
and decreed the claim of the plaintiffs for partition and for arrears of companypensation.
Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the sons and plaintiff 6 is the widow of Gajanand and plaintiff No.
Both of them are dead.
Ramsahai, Jahauri Sah and Ramgali were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family.
On these allegations the plaintiffs instituted their suit.
T. Desai and R. C. Prasad, for the respondents.
The plaintiffs acquiesced in it because of an agreement between the parties that the defendants would pay Rs.
100/ per mensem.
2 of 196 1.
Sarjoo Prasad, S. C. Sinha and B. P. Jha, for the appellants.
200/ p.m. This part of the High Courts judgment is number challenged before us by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad.
The property in question was purchased by the two joint families, each family having half interest therein.
