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
(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?
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
