Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1595 (RAJ)

Mangi Devi v. Satyanarayan

2012-07-20

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit against Rameshwar Lal. (respondent No. 2 herein) for evicting out of the premises (House) situated in Village Osiyan, near Mataji-ka-Mandir on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit came to be decree by the learned trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004. 3. In the execution proceedings, the appellant, Smt. Mangi Devi filed objections claiming herself to be in possession of suit premises for last 20-30 years after death of her husband. The said objections, however, came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 6.11.2007 in Civil Execution No. 2/2005-Satya Narayan v. Rameshwar Lal & Anr. , arising out of Civil Original Suit No. 2/2002-Satya Narayan v. Rameshwar Das, which was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 by the learned trial Court. 4. The appellant-objector (Smt. Mangi Devi) thereafter assailed the order dated 6.11.2007 passed by learned trial Court rejecting her objections under Order 21 Rules 35, 36, 97 and Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 read with Section 151, C.P.C., before the Court of learned Additional District judge No. 1, jodhpur being Civil Execution Appeal No. 37/2007-Smt. Mangi Devi v. Satya Narayan & Anr. , which appeal came to be dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2008 and affirmed the decree dated 6.11.2007 passed in Civil Execution Case No. 2/2005-Satyanarayan v. Rameshwar and Mangi Devi , against the present second appeal is before this Court. 5. Against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004, the appeal preferred by the Rameshwar Lal (respondent No. 2 herein) came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2005 and against the said judgment and decree, the second appeal being SBCSA No. 18/2008-Rameshwar Das v. Satyanarayan , preferred by the said Rameshwar Lal also came to be dismissed vide the judgment dated 28.7.2006 by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and upon perusal of impugned judgments and decree of the Courts below, this Court finds that the both the Courts below have rightly rejected the objections filed by the appellant and Courts below are justified in passing the decree of eviction. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and upon perusal of impugned judgments and decree of the Courts below, this Court finds that the both the Courts below have rightly rejected the objections filed by the appellant and Courts below are justified in passing the decree of eviction. This Court finds no substantial questions of law to be arising in the present second appeal and accordingly the present second appeal is dismissed. No costs. 7. The appellant-defendant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-decree holder within a period of one year from today and the original tenant, son of the present appellant, namely, Rameshwar Lal, (respondent No. 2) shall pay mesne profit Rs. 500/- per month commencing from July, 2012 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of one year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of anyone else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within one month and one copy thereof alongwith affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-decree holder within a period of one year from today, besides execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court against the judgment debtor as well as the present appellant.Appeal dismissed. *******