Is the sale deed genuine, valid and for companysideration?
The defendant in his written statement, apart from the formal objections to the maintainability of the suit, denied that Sulakshana executed any sale deed with respect to the suit house in favour of the plaintiff.
In this companynection, the defendant stated that Sulakshana had an attack of paralysis before August 13, 1957 when the sale was said to have been executed by her.
Following the purchase of the suit house, she moved the Block Development Officer BDO and the municipality for mutation of her name in respect of the suit house in the revenue and municipal records.
He submitted a plan in the municipality for companystruction of the house on it and companystructed the house after the plan was sanctioned.
He stated that Sulakshana had transferred the suit house in his favour in 1950, by Hiba oral gift and since then he was companying in possession of the suit property.
The defendant did number pay the rent from September, 1971 to February 13, 1973.
The defendant Md. Lukman, filed an objection before the BDO, but his objection was disallowed and her name was entered in the revenue and municipal records.
He denied any relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff and also denied to have taken the suit house from the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.10.00 rupees ten only .
Amina further claimed that Sulakshana sold the suit house to her through a registered sale deed dated August 13, 1957.
He never paid any rent to the plaintiff, number was any rent due against him.
She then sent a registered numberice to him under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 through her lawyer determining the defendants tenancy and asking him to vacate the house by March 31, 1973.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed seven issues, of which issue number.3 4 relating to the plaintiffs claim of title over the suit property and issue number5 about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are relevant for this appeal.
She had lost her senses and she was number in a position to execute any sale deed.
It then took up issue number.5 and 6 about the plaintiffs entitlement to a decree of eviction together and came to hold and find that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had number been proved.
Those three issues are as under Has the plaintiff got title to the suit land?
The defendant did number vacate the house forcing her to go to the companyrt.
In support of the rival claims of title over the suit property, both the plaintiff and the defendant led their respective evidences, both oral and documentary.
Originally, it was parti vacant land.
It was further the case of Amina, that she had let out the suit house to the defendant about 4 or 5 years prior to the filing of the suit on a monthly rent of Rs.10.00 rupees ten only .
Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the Parties?
He described the sale deed, relied upon by the plaintiff as the basis of her title, as a forged and fabricated document.
The defendant also examined the third brother, Md. Jan from his side as DW11.
He was living in the house companystructed by him over the land which was given to him by his mother by Hiba.
Later on, the municipality filed a suit against her for arrears of tax whereupon all the outstanding dues of tax were paid by her.
AFTAB ALAM, J. A finding on the question of title recorded in a suit for eviction would how far be binding in a subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the same parties?
