JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second appeal by the defendant Ganesh Narain against the appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated November 28, 1967, whereby the decree dismissing the suit by the Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) dated August 28, 1966 was reversed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a portion of the property No. 17/133 situated in Hathi Bhata, Ajmer. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 554/12 paise for the period from September 1, 1961 to March 31, 1964 at the rate of Rs. 17.50 per month. The plaintiff also sought eviction of the defendant on the ground of default of payment of rent. The defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the defendant, he took the premises on rent from Ambika Charan sometime in the year 1945. Ambika Charan died in the year 1950 leaving behind his widow Rajrani and his minor son Ramdass, the plaintiff. The defendant went on paying rent to Rajrani up to August 30, 1961. Thereafter the property was attached in execution proceedings against Rajrani in execution case No. 54 of 1990 of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. During the course of the pendency of the execution proceedings, the defendant, in pursuance of the order of the executing court, deposited rent in court for the period from September 1, 1961 to December 31, 1963, totalling in all Rs. 490/-. The whole of the property was auctioned in the said execution proceedings and it was purchased at the auction by Chandanmal and Sohanlal, sons of Ridkaran on May 1, 1964 and sale-certificate was issued on October 27, 1964. It further appears that Ramdass, the plaintiff-appellant, instituted a suit for setting aside the sale of the property in execution case No. 54 of 1960 on the ground that the property belonged to him and it was wrongly sold in execution proceedings against Rajrani. That suit was dismissed. The facts stated above are no longer in dispute before me. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the property jointly belonged to Rajrani and Ramdass and unless Rajrani was impleaded as a party to the suit, Ramdass alone was not competent to file the suit. That suit was dismissed. The facts stated above are no longer in dispute before me. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the property jointly belonged to Rajrani and Ramdass and unless Rajrani was impleaded as a party to the suit, Ramdass alone was not competent to file the suit. The plaintiff then filed an appeal only in respect of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 554/12 paise. The plaintiff gave up the relief relating to eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The learned senior Civil Judge accepted the appeal holding that the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit as he was the Manager of the Hindu joint family consisting of the plaintiff and his mother Rajrani. He accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 554/12 against the defendant. He further granted a decree at the rate of Rs. 17.50 per month from April 21, 1964 onwards till the defendant remained the tenant of the plaintiff. It is against this decree that the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that the defendant had deposited Rs. 490/- in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, in execution case No. 54 of 1960. It is further not in dispute that the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 64/12 on May 14, 1968 in the court of the Munsiff, Ajmer (East), in this very suit. In view of the above admitted position, it is clear that the defendant has undoubtedly deposited Rs. 554/12 as rent of the suit premises. 6. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff Ramdas alone is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit premises were let-out to the appellant by Ambika Charan and on his death the property devolved either on his widow Rajrani or his son Ramdass or on both. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant, that so far as the appellant is concerned, it is immaterial whether the amount deposited by him is withdrawn by the plaintiff or Rajrani or both. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant, that so far as the appellant is concerned, it is immaterial whether the amount deposited by him is withdrawn by the plaintiff or Rajrani or both. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that he has no objection if the plaintiff Ramdass or Rajrani or both are allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 554/12 deposited by the defendant. In view of the above agreed position, the suit for the recovery of Rs. 554/12 deserves to be dismissed, in case the plaintiff or Rajrani or both are allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 554/12 deposited by the defendant. 7. As regards future rent, it is admitted position that the property was auctioned and it was purchased by Chandanmal and Sohanlal on May 1, 1964. From May 1, 1964, admittedly the purchasers alone are entitled to recover rent from the defendant. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with the direction that the plaintiff or Rajrani or both shall to entitled to withdraw the amount of 490/- lying in deposit in the court of Senior Civil Judge (now Additional District Judge), Ajmer in Execution case No. 54 of 1960, and the amount of Rs. 64/12 paise lying in deposit in this very suit in the court of Munsiff (East). Ajmer. 9. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.Appeal allowed. *******