3 that Ram Sahai was the tenant of Param Lal and therefore, defendant Nos.
After having said so in his judgment the Civil Judge also found that due to certain technical defects in the description of the guardian of defendant number.
182 of 1956.
1 to 4 were also tenants of the premises in dispute.
152 of 1956 was delivered on September 17, 1958.
5 never executed any rent numbere on their behalf in favour of the plaintiff.
We are number companycerned here with the companyrectness of the reasons for dismissing the appeal against defendants 2 and 3 appellants 2 and 3 herein on the ground of limitation.
The other second appeal was dismissed on the ground that the companyrts below have recorded the following categorical findings of fact Param Lal was the owner of the house.
He did number frame companyrect issues, which all the more led him to error.
Respondent number 1 filed Suit No.
It was, however, claimed on their behalf that they had acquired title to the house in suit by adverse possession.
The Temporary Civil Sessions Judge of Etah who heard the appeal agreed with all the findings of the Munsif and dismissed the appeal.
underlining by me .
29, 30 and 31, in favour of the latter.
The suit was filed for their eviction and certain other reliefs of realization of rent etc.
His suit should of companyrse succeed against the defendant number 5 who has number companye forward to challenge or companytest the plaint allegations against him.
5, who is the maternal uncle of defendants 1 to 3 and brother of defendant 4 executed a rent numbere on November 13, 1946, on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff.
There is numberfurther appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree in the second appeal 4658 of 1958 to this Court.
The tenancy of the appellants defendants 1 to 4 in that suit also and others was terminated by a numberice to quit.
The point of res judicata was number raised before him.
2 and 3 appellants 2 and 3 here who were minors then, the appeal would be deemed to have been filed against them out of time.
was decreed.
Sarjoo Prasad, Miss Uma Mehta, Mr. and Mrs. S. K. Bagga and Raj Kumar Mehta, for the respondent.
1795 of 1965 arising out of this suit.
114 of 1952 C. A. No.
They had sublet a portion to Kalawati who was impleaded as defendant number 6 in that suit.
Respondent number 4 did number companytest that suit.
The lower appellate companyrt decreed the suit for rent and ejectment against defendant No.
6 of 1959 in the same companyrt of the Munsif of Etah claiming declaration of right and title to and possession of the identical premises.
Ram Sahai was the tenant of Param Lal and, therefore, defendants number.
The Civil Judge rejected their claim.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 21 11 1967 of the High Court of Allahabad in second appeal No.
He sued to set aside the bond on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the amount due.
8 Whether the suit against defendants 1 to 4 is barred by time ?
In a subsequent suit by the respondent upon the bond the appellant raised as a defence the same case of fraud.
Ram Sahai is the father of defendants 1 to 3 and husband of defendant 4.
K. Mehta, M. Qamaruddin, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri for the appellants.
5 and decreed that the defendant No.
The trial companyrt refused to rely upon these rent numberes and even characterised these as suspicious documents.
A special ground, as pointed out above, had been taken by respondent number 1 in his second appeal that the dismissal of appeal against appellants 2 and 3 on the ground of limitation was erroneous in law.
The dispute relates to an Ahta a house with companypound situated in the town of Aliganj, District Etah.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit No.
It was companytested by the appellants and Kalawati.
The allegations in the plaint were that defendant No.
182 of 1956, respondent number 1 filed the second suit on November 13, 1958 which was eventually registered as suit number 6 of 1959.
The appellants denied that they were the tenants of the house under respondent number 1.
The Civil Judge observed in the beginning of his judgment that the learned Munsif did number appreciate the parties pleading at all.
The plaintiff and the defendants are identical in the second suit.
Upon a further appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, it was held without entering into the merits that the appellant companyld avoid the bond as he did number claim to avoid the deed.
1 to 4 were also tenants of the premises in dispute.
On the appellants objection that the decision in the earlier suit operated as res judicata and hence second appeal 1795 should be heard later, C. B. Kapoor, J. made an order on April 19, 1966 observing that it was open to the appellants to raise the point when the two second appeals were taken up for hearing.
The judgment of the lower appellate companyrt in C.A. No.
He found the rent numbere dated November 13, 1946 executed by respondent number 4 to be genuine but held that it did number establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent number 1 and the appellants.
Respondent number 1 filed an application in the High Court for the hearing of both the second appeals together.
When the matter came to the High Court, the High Court clearly rested its judgment only on the basis of the finding that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between respondent number 1 and the appellants.
5 only who shall vacate the house in suit on his own account.
He transferred it to one Kirpa Ram by a registered sale deed dated March 7, 1914.
in a suit companystituted as the suit of 1885 was, numberdecision ought to have been pronounced on the merits.
Indeed in companysidering the plea of res judicata companyrectness of the finding is number in issue.
714/ as the arrears of rent in respect thereof for the period in suit to the plaintiff.
13 of 1964.
The trial companyrt held that defendant 5 did number execute the rent numbere on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 and also found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Param Lal and after him the plaintiff has been in possession of the kothi in dispute within twelve years of the suitIn view of these reasons I hold that it has number been proved that Ram Sahai and after him the defendants 1 to 4 are in occupation of the house in dispute as tenants of the plaintiff and so they are clearly in adverse possession of the house in dispute.
The facts of this case were that the appellant in pursuance of a deed of dissolution of partnership executed a bond for the payment of a sum of money to the respondent.
He, therefore, said Hence, the appeal against the defendants number 2 and 3 should fail on the ground of want of limitation as well.
The appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate companyrt against defendants 1 and 4 on merits after making certain observations which will be dealt with later.
The defence of defendants 1 to 4 was that defendant No.
Mohan Lal was the adopted son of Param Lal.
Respondents 2 and 3 are daughters of one Kalawati and were substituted in her place on her death.
The appeal against respondent number 4 who was defendant number 5 in that suit was allowed and the suit for ejectment as against him and for certain other reliefs for realization of rent etc.
The fantastic claim of appellant 4 that Kirpa Ram had gifted the house to Ram Sahai was rejected and it was held that the house belonged to Param Lal and thereafter to respondent number 1.
A full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Maruvada Venkataratnama and others v. M. Krishnama and others 2 followed above two decisions of the Privy Council.
The third issue, although decided by the Trial Court, was thought unnecessary to be decided within the frame of the carrier suit by the lower appellate companyrt and the High Court.
The point of res judicata was answered by the Munsil against the appellants on the ground that the matter in the earlier suit was sub judice and it had numbersubstance either.
5 shall vacate the house in suit on his own account and pay a sum of Rs.
After the death of Kirpa Ram, his son Hemraj became the owner of the house and he sold it away to Bohre Param Lal by a registered sale deed dated June 11, 192 Param Lal died in the year 1946.
The argument in the appeal before him was companyfined to the question of tenancy of the appellants and sub tenancy of KaKlawati.
The appellants filed second appeal number 1795 of 1965 in the High Court from the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.
He wanted a decree against all the appellants and one of the grounds taken in the appeal was that the view of the learned Judge that the appeal against defendants 2 and 3 was time barred, is erroneous in law Shortly after the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt and affirmed by the lower appellate companyrt.
The Judgement of K. K. Mathew and P. K. Goswami, JJ.
Respondent number 1 filed Second Appeal number 4658 of 1958 in the Allahabad High Court from the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.
Defendant No.
Since in the written statement filed in 1952 by the appellants in the earlier suit respondent number1s title to the house in question had been denied, the present suit was instituted for recovery of possession of the house on the basis of title.
The first two issues were number decided in the earlier suit even by the Trial Court.
He probed into unnecessary matters and did number give his finding on the matters in issueThe suit aforesaid was filed merely on the tenancy basis but the learned Munsif went into the matter if Articles 142 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act barred the suit aforesaid and he actually gave a finding thereon.
3 Is the suit barred under articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act ?
13 of 1964 in the Lower Appellate Court.
One Dileram was the owner of this house.
2 that Mohan Lal was the adopted son of Param Lal.
The lower appellate companyrt, however, allowed the appeal against the number contesting defendant No.
GOSWAMI, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court the only question that is raised relates to the plea of res judicata.
He also held agreeing with Munsif that the suit was number barred under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Munsif who tried the second suit decreed it by his judgment dated December 12, 1963 deciding all the issues in favour of respondent number 1.
was delivered by Goswami, J. N. L. Untwalia, J. gave a dissenting Opinion.
1 herein claims to be the adopted son of one Param Lal who is the original owner of the premises in suit.
Since they were in arrears of rent for nearly 21/2 years the suit was instituted for rent and possession by eviction of the defendants.
152 of 1956 against defendants 2 and 3 on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.
In the said suit the four appellants were defendants 1 to 4 and respondents 2, 3 and 4 were respectively defendants 5/1, 5/2 and 6.
The findings arrived at in the adjudication have to be taken at their face value between the parties.
Later on the plaintiff filed a second suit No.
He also held that sub tenancy in favour of Kalawati was number established and then said The result of the above findings is that the plaintiffs suit against the defendants number 1 to 4 and 6 must fail.
It was disposed of by the Civil Judge of Etah on September 17, 1958.
5 did number enter appearance to companytest the suit.
The appellants in their written statement refuted the claim of respondent number 1 to be the adopted son of Param Lal or that the house belonged to him.
The finding of the Munsif that Param Lal was the owner of the house companyld number be assailed by the appellants before the Civil Judge.
114 of 1952 in the Court of Munsif of Etah and alleged that respondent number 4, impleaded as defendant number 5 in that suit, was the brother of appellant 4 widow of one Ram Sahai and maternal uncle of respondents 1 to 3, sons of Ram Sahai and that he had executed a rent numbere dated November 13, 1946 in favour of respondent number 1 taking the house on rent on behalf of the appellants.
Respondent number 1 claims to be the owner of the house as the adopted son of Param Lal.
1795 of 1965.
He further held that Ram Sahai was the tenant of the house under Param Lal and after his death in the year 1946, the appellants became the lessees.
The High Court dismissed the second appeal of the defendants No.
Respondent number 1 filed Civil Appeal No.
The Trial Judge and on appeal the District Judge held that the alleged fraud was number established and dismissed the suit.
114 of 1952 in the companyrt of the Munsif of Etah, Uttar Pradesh, against defendants 1 to 6.
They reiterated their stand that they were number tenants of the house and claimed title by adverse possession.
The plaintiff brought a suit being O. S. No.
182 of 1956.
The lower appellate companyrt dismissed the plaintiffs appeal arising out of O.S. No.
He held that respondent number 1 was the adopted son of Param Lal.
In second appeal 4658 of 1958 the learned Judge said As regards the question of adverse possession the lower appellate companyrt held that it did number arise and, therefore, numberfinding was given on that point The finding that defendants number 1 to 4 were number the tenants of the plaintiff is one of fact and it cannot be disturbed in second appeal.
175 of 1968.
The facts so far as material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows The plaintiff respondent No.
Kalawati had unauthoridly transferred the portion in her possession to Mathura Prasad.
Apart from depending on the rent numbere, evidence was led by the plaintiff in the trial companyrt in that suit to establish that Ram Sahai was a tenant under Param Lal and the former executed rent numberes, Exts.
After tracing the history of his title Respondent number 1 asserted that the appellants were tenants of the house number only on the basis of the rent numbere executed by respondent number 4 defendent number 6 in the second suit but also because Ram Sahai, father of appellants 1 to 3 and husband of appellant 4 had been a tenant in the house under Param Lal the adoptive father of respondent number 1, since 1938.
The appellants filed Civil Appeal No.
114 of 1952 Issue No.
114 of 1952 against all the defendants.
114 of 1952 filed by respondent number 1 in the same Court will have to be stated.
Both Param Lal and Ram Sahai died some time in 1946.
Kalawati, claiming to be the daughters daughter of Dileram, sold a small portion of the Ahta to one Mathura Prasad by a sale deed dated July 31, 1951.
They disclaimed tenancy and asserted their own title to the premises in suit by adverse possession.
Even so, the suit stood dismissed against defendants 1 to 4.
The trial companyrt, inter alia, framed the following issues in suit No.
The lower appellate companyrt did number expressly disturb this finding but observed that the trial companyrt probed into unnecessary matters.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Issue No.
Both the appeals were heard and dismissed by S. K. Verma, J. as he then was, by his Judgment and order dated November 21, 1967.
