High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajendra Kumar v. Iabal Singh (Plaintiff) & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. - 770 of 2006  RD-AH 16245 (3 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Second Appeal No. 770 of 2006
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
Second Appeal No. 771 of 2006
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan & ors.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
These two Second Appeals have been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Baghpat by which two Civil Appeals have been dismissed.
Second Appeal No. 770 of 2006 has been filed by defendant Rajendra Kumar for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2006 by which Civil Appeal No. 753 of 1987 filed by Rajendra Kumar arising out of Original Suit No. 293 of 1984 (Iqbal Singh Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.) has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been confirmed.
Second Appeal No.771 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff Rajendra Kumar for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2006 by which Civil Appeal No.251 of 1987 that had been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree arising out of Original Suit No.4 of 1997 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors.) has been dismissed.
Original Suit No. 293 of 1984 had been filed by Iqbal Singh against Rajendra Prasad and Jaswant Singh for eviction from the shop in dispute. It was stated that the plaintiff had purchased the property by sale deed executed on 11th January, 1978 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- from the owners Ram Kishan and others. Defendant no.2 is the father of defendant no.1 Rajendra Kumar. Defendant no.2 had requested the plaintiff to give him the shop in dispute as a licensee for two months from August, 1978. The plaintiff terminated the licence by the notice dated 26th October, 1978. Defendant no.1, however, had filed Original Suit No.4 of 1979 against Sri Jaswant Singh, Iqbal Singh and others alleging tenancy of the disputed shop in the year 1970 from Gopal Singh.
Original Suit No. 4 of 1979, as seen above, had been filed by Rajendra Kumar against the defendants stating that he was occupying the shop in dispute from the year 1970 on yearly rent of Rs.480/-. The landlord Gopal Singh executed a sale deed on 5th December, 1971 in favour of Kailash Chandra Jain who sold it to Hari Kishan and Ram Kishan on 6th June, 1977. Subsequently, Hari Kishan and Ram Kishan sold the shop to Jaswant Singh on 15th September, 1978 and thereafter the plaintiff continued as tenant of Jaswant Singh. The defendant, however, in collusion with each other wanted to evict the plaintiff. It was further alleged that defendant no.4 Iqbal Singh had set up a claim that he had purchased the property from Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan by means of the sale deed dated 11th January, 1978 and on the basis of this sale deed claimed to be the owner. The suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession.
The Trial Court by the order dated 10th December, 1986 consolidated both the aforesaid Original Suit Nos. 4 of 1979 and Original Suit No.293 of 1984 and Original Suit No.4 of 1979 was taken as the leading case in which evidence was recorded.
The relevant issues that had been framed in the two original suits are as follows:-
Original Suit No.4 of 1979:
Issue no.1- Whether the plaintiff Rajendra Kumar was the tenant of defendant no.3 Jaswant Singh and if so, its effect?
Issue no.3- Whether the sale deed executed on 11th January, 1978 by defendant no.1 Ram Kishan and defendant no.2 Hari Kishan in favour of defendant no.4 Iqbal Singh was collusive and, if so, its effect?
Original Suit No. 293 of 1984:
Issue no.1- Whether defendant no.2 Jaswant Singh was the licensee of the plaintiff Iqbal Singh?
Issue no.2- Whether the said licence was terminated as stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint?
Issue no.3- Whether defendant no.1 Rajendra Kumar was the tenant of the property?
The Trial Court decided issue no.1 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1979 and issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Original Suit No.293 of 1983 together. It noticed that what was not in dispute was that Rajendra Kumar was the son of Jaswant Singh; that Gopal Singh was the initial owner of the shop in dispute who had sold it on 15th December, 1971 to Kailash Chandra Jain who subsequently sold it to Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan. The case set up by Rajendra Kumar was that Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan had sold the shop in dispute to Jaswant Singh by the sale deed dated 15th September, 1978 and he was his tenant. On the other hand, the case set up by Iqbal Singh was that the said shop in dispute had been sold to him by Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan on 11th January, 1978 through a registered sale deed and, therefore, Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan had no authority to execute the subsequent sale deed dated 15th September, 1978 in favour of Jaswant Singh. The Trial Court found that Jaswant Singh was not bona fide purchaser without notice as the earlier sale deed executed on 11th January, 1978 in favour of Iqbal Singh was registered and it is in such circumstances Jaswant Singh acquired no rights in the property. The Trial Court also found that Rajendra Kumar could not establish that he was the tenant of the shop in dispute from the year 1970. On the other hand, Iqbal Singh was able to establish that he had given the shop for two months without any rent on the request of Jaswant Singh as he had to vacate another shop of which he was the tenant in the year 1978. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the shop had been given to Jaswant Singh on licence which licence was validly terminated. Issue no.3 of Original Suit No.4 of 1979 was decided against Rajendra Kumar as he could not prove that the sale deed dated 11th January, 1978 executed in favour of Iqbal Singh by Ram Kishan and Hari Kishan was collusive. Accordingly, Original Suit No.4 of 1979 was dismissed with cost while Original Suit No.293 of 1984 was decreed with costs and the defendants were ordered to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff within a period of one month.
Rajendra Kumar filed two Civil Appeals against the judgments rendered in Original Suit No.4 of 1979 and Original Suit No.293 of 1984. These two Civil Appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bagpat by means of the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2006. The Lower Appellate Court while dealing with Issue No.1 of Original Suit No.4 of 1979 and Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Original Suit No. 293 of 194 confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court found that Rajendra Kumar could not establish from the documents on record that he was a tenant of the disputed shop from the year 1970 when Gopal Singh was the owner as the documents filed by him relating to sales tax did not indicate that they were in respect of the disputed shop. Rajendra Kumar did not also call the earlier owner Gopal Singh for giving evidence that he had let out the shop to Rajendra Kumar. The Lower Appellate Court also repelled the contention of Rajendra Kumar that he subsequently became the tenant of Jaswant Singh after Jaswant Singh had purchased the shop through the sale deed dated 15th September, 1978. The Lower Appellate Court found that the said sale deed dated 15th September, 1978 did not confer any right upon Jaswant Singh as the actual owners Hari Kishan and Ram Kishan had earlier sold the property to Iqbal Singh through the registered sale deed dated 11th January, 1978. Jaswant Singh was not a bona fide purchaser without notice as the earlier sale deed dated 11th January, 1978 was registered. The Lower Appellate Court accepted the case of Iqbal Singh that as Jaswant Singh had to vacate another shop in 1978, he permitted Jaswant Singh to occupy the disputed shop for a period of two months and since he did not vacate this shop after the said period, he terminated the licence and filed suit for eviction.
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the findings recorded by the Courts below that he was not the tenant of the shop in dispute from the year 1970 is erroneous as certain documents had been filed by him but the Courts below have not correctly appreciated these documents.
This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the documents did not indicate that they related to the shop in dispute. On the other hand, the Courts below have found, as a fact, that in the year 1978 Jaswant Singh had to vacate the shop of which he was the tenant and in order to accommodate him, Iqbal Singh permitted him to occupy the shop in dispute for a period of two months. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to place any material which may indicate that the shop in dispute was let out to him by Jaswant Singh in the year 1970.
Such being the position, these Second Appeals are liable to be dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law arises for consideration and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.