Rajasthan High Court
Smt.Geeta vs Baboo Lal on 9 April, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1/1993
Smt. Geeta Lalsere, W/o Shri Janardan Lalsere, R/o House
No.348/36, Loha Khan Police Line, Ajmer.
---Defendant-Appellant
Versus
1. Baboo Lal S/o Pushkar Narain, R/o Meershali Colony, Jaipur
Road, Ajmer.
----Respondent-Plaintiff
2. Shri Brij Mohan S/o Shri Janardan Lalsere, R/o House No.348-/36, Loha Khan Police Line, Ajmer.
Respondent-Defendant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. C. Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Adv. assisted
by Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date Of Judgment 09/04/2024 This first regular appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the defendant-appellant (for short 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer (for short 'the trial court') in civil suit No.11/88, by which the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1(for short 'the plaintiff') and held the plaintiff entitled to take vacant possession of the disputed premises and also to get mesne profit @ Rs.80 per month from 01.01.2018 till getting vacant possession of the house in dispute.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff in his suit clearly stated that he had purchased the disputed house from Janardan (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:13:38 PM) (2 of 4) [CFA-1/1993] Lalsere on 03.11.1982. Janardan Lalsere had purchased the said house from Mohan Lal on 22.02.1973. The defendant was wife of Janardan Lalsere and residing in the disputed house with him. The plaintiff in his suit clearly stated that Janardan Lalsere wanted to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house but due to dispute between them, the vacant possession of the disputed house could not be handed over to him. Plaintiff in his suit also stated that the possession of the defendant was illegal and he is entitled to get mesne profit @ Rs.80/- per month.
The defendants while filing the written statement before the trial court mentioned that salary of Janardan Lalsere was Rs.150/- per month, so he could not purchase the disputed house from his income. The Defendant had given a large amount for purchasing the said house, so she was also having a share in the said house. The defendant also mentioned that previously, the plaintiff had filed a civil on the ground of tenancy, which was withdrawn by him. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff was required to be dismissed.
The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following substantial questions of Law:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff had purchased the disputed property from Janardan Lalsere and he is the owner of the said property? (2) Whether Janardan Lalsere was not the owner of the disputed property and he had no right to sell the house? (3) Whether the defendant is residing as a owner in the said property since 1973?
(4) Whether possession of the defendant is illegal and the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.80/- per month? (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:13:38 PM)
(3 of 4) [CFA-1/1993] (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,880/-?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.80/-
per month from 03.01.1988?
(7) Whether the suit has been undervalued and what should be its valuation?
(8) Relief?
The trial court after hearing both the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial court has committed a grave error in deciding all the issues against the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant had submitted the cogent evidence before the trial court that Janardan Lalsere was earning Rs.150/- per month, so he had no capacity to purchase the disputed property. The defendant had contributed a large amount in purchasing the disputed house. She was residing as a owner in the disputed house. Janardan Lalsere had no authority to sell the disputed house to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that previously the plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on the basis of tenancy, which was withdrawn by him. So, adverse inference be drawn against the plaintiff and the judgment dated 10.09.1992 passed by the trial court be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that Janardan Lalsere was the absolute owner of the disputed house and he had (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:13:38 PM) (4 of 4) [CFA-1/1993] authority to sell the disputed house. The defendant had no right to challenge the so-called sale. The trial court has rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that Janardan Lalsere had purchased the disputed house from Mohan Lal. He was the absolute owner of the disputed house. The defendant had failed to submit any cogent evidence that she had contributed a large amount in purchasing the disputed house, so the trial court has rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/01 (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:13:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)