Rajasthan High Court
Shyam Babu vs Hem Singh on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 502/2011
1. Shyam Babu S/o Shri Gauri Shankar, r/o Bhamtipura, Tehsil
and Distt. Dholpur Raj. (Deceased)
1/1. Asha Devi- Widow of Late Shyam Babu aged about 68
years.
1/2. Rakesh- Son of Late Shayam Babu aged about 43 years.
1/3. Champa- Daugher of Late Shayam Babu aged about 41
years
1/4. Poonam Daguther of Late Shyam Babu aged about 36
years.
1/5. Geeta Daughter of Late Shayam Babu aged about 37 years
All residents of Bhamtipura, Tehsil and District-Dholpur (Raj.)
----Appellants/Defendants
Versus
Hem Singh S/o Mohan Singh, r/o Gher, Tehsil and Distt. Dholpur
Raj.
----Respondent/Plaintiff
With
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.130/2009
1. Shyam Babu S/o Shri Gauri Shankar, r/o Bhamtipura, Tehsil
and Distt. Dholpur Raj. (Deceased)
1/1. Asha Devi- Widow of Late Shyam Babu aged about 68
years.
1/2. Rakesh- Son of Late Shayam Babu aged about 43 years.
1/3. Champa- Daugher of Late Shayam Babu aged about 41
years
1/4. Poonam Daguther of Late Shyam Babu aged about 36
years.
1/5. Geeta Daughter of Late Shayam Babu aged about 37 years
All residents of Bhamtipura, Tehsil and District-Dholpur (Raj.)
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of Laxmi Narain, Resident of Chomu Road,
Jaipur, at present station road, Dholpur.
2. Ramshree Widow of Laxmi Narain, Resident of Chomu Road,
Jaipur at present station road, Dholpur.
3. Kaushal Kishore widow of Ram Kilshan, R/o Chomu Road,
Jaipur at present station road, Dholpur.
(2 of 4) [CSA-502/2011]
4. Hem Singh son of Mohan Singh, r/o Village Ghaind, Tehsil and
District Dholpur.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ambrish Vashistha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
09/05/2022
1. Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. It appears from record that original appellant-defendant
namely Sh. Shyam Babu was tenant of Shri Ramkishan. It is not in
dispute that the property in question was belonging to Ramkishan.
The dispute arose between parties after the death of Ramkishan
as appellant-defendant claims to have an agreement to sale dated
08.04.1991 from Ramkishan.
3. Per contra, respondents purchased the suit property through
registered sale deed dated 23.12.1991 executed from the heirs
and legal representatives of the Ramkishan.
4. Respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction, which has
been decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 23.12.2010
and affirmed in the first appeal vide judgment dated 04.03.2011
mainly on the ground of denial of title, though the defendant was
found defaulter in payment of rent also. Challenging the decree for
eviction, appellants have filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal
No.502/2011.
5. Appellants filed a civil suit for specific performance on the
basis of his agreement dated 08.04.1991, but his civil suit was
dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate
(3 of 4) [CSA-502/2011]
court. Challenging the dismissal of their suit for specific
performance, appellants have preferred the S.B. Civil Second
Appeal No.130/2009.
6. After arguing both second appeals for some time on merits,
considering the concurrent findings of the two courts below,
affirming the decree for eviction and dismissing the suit for
specific performance, counsel for appellant-defendant on
instructions of the present appellants, who are legal
representatives of deceased appellant, fairly submits that since
appellants are in possession of the suit property prior to year
1991, if some reasonable time is granted, they will not press both
these appeals on merits and would vacate and hand over the
possession of the suit property to respondents.
7. Learned counsel for respondents on instruction of his client,
immediately grabbed the aforesaid proposal that in case both
second appeals are dismissed as not press, some reasonable time
to vacate and hand over the suit property may be granted to
appellants.
8. In view of aforesaid submissions, both appeals are disposed
of maintaining the impugned judgments and decree for eviction,
on the following agreed terms:-
(i) The appellants shall be entitled to continue in
occupation and use of the suit premises in question till
31st May, 2024, subject to condition that they would
hand over the vacant possession of the premises in
question to respondent-landlord-plaintiff on or before
31st May, 2024.
(ii) The appellants will continue to pay the mesne
profit @Rs.100/- per month from May, 2022 up to May,
(4 of 4) [CSA-502/2011]
2024 and would pay arrears, if any, within a period of
two months.
(iii) The appellants shall not alienate or otherwise
create any third party right, or hand over possession
of the suit premises in question to any other person.
(iv) That all appellants shall furnish an undertaking, either
jointly or severally, incorporating aforesaid conditions before
the trial court within a period of eight weeks, from the date of
this order with an advance copy to landlords."
9. In case the appellants-tenants fail to submit the undertaking as
aforesaid, and/or commit breach any of the conditions of this order, the
landlords shall be entitled to initiate immediate execution of impugned
judgment and decree to obtain possession of premise in issue forthwith
in accordance with law and may also initiate proceedings of contempt
for breach of undertaking.
10. With aforesaid observations, both second appeals stand disposed
of
11. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s), if
any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/93
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
