Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1438 (MP)

Lakhanlal Rai v. Kantibai

2013-11-20

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT : K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2013 by the Additional District Judge, Hatta, District Damoh, arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2011 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Hatta, District Damoh. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on the ground that the suit property was purchased by them by a registered sale-deed dated 22.01.2000. Since the appellant was having no place to live, on an undertaking that the suit accommodation would be vacated by him whenever required by the respondents/plaintiffs, he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The respondents/plaintiffs gave a notice to the appellant to vacate the suit premises as the respondents/plaintiffs had retired from service and were residing at Damoh in a rented premises. Since the rent of the premises was also not paid by the appellant, a composite suit for eviction of the appellant as also recovery of rent was filed. 2. A defence was taken by the appellant that the suit house was the part of ancestral property and the respondents/plaintiffs alone were not entitled to inherit or purchase it through the registered sale-deed. Certain part of the property was alienated and, therefore, the suit as filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 3. After recording the evidence, the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the sale-deed was rightly executed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and that the appellant was a tenant in the suit premises. Since he has refused to accept the notice of eviction from the accommodation, the suit was rightly filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. After assessment of the evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed first appeal, which too was dismissed by the first Appellate Court after marshalling the evidence of the parties. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the available circumstances and in view of the fact that the sale-deed executed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs was disputed by the appellant right from day one, no such decree could be granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the available circumstances and in view of the fact that the sale-deed executed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs was disputed by the appellant right from day one, no such decree could be granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. It is contended that such a sale-deed executed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs was inadmissible document as a joint property could not have been transferred only by one member of the Hindu joint family. 5. Entire consideration of such evidence is done by the two Courts below. It is found by two Courts below that property was rightly purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs and they inducted the appellant as a tenant. These concurrent findings based on rightful appreciation of evidence need no interference in the second appeal. No error of law is committed by the Courts below in rejecting the claim of the appellant, therefore, the appeal has no merits and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that execution proceedings have been initiated. Only because interim protection was given while appeal was pending, he has not been evicted from the suit premises. It is contended that possession warrant is issued, which is to be put for execution in a day. Looking to the fact that the appellant is more than 65 years of age, some time may be allowed to make arrangement for shifting of the residence. 7. In view of the aforesaid, three months' time is allowed to the appellant to vacate the suit accommodation and to handover the possession of the same to the respondents/plaintiffs. Let it be done by or before 1st March, 2014. In case the vacant possession of the house in suit is not delivered to respondents/plaintiffs by the aforesaid date, the execution of the judgment and decree be done immediately and possession of the house in suit be delivered to the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellant will be obliged to furnish a security to this effect before the Executing Court under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the shape of security. The appellant will be obliged to furnish a security to this effect before the Executing Court under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the shape of security. The appellant will also deposit the entire cost of the appeal in the first Appellate Court and cost of the suit in the Trial Court in the CCD of the Executing Court within a month from today and will continue to pay the rent to the respondents/plaintiffs for the period allowed by this Court. 8. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid direction. Certified copy today. Appeal dismissed.