MAYA RAM Vs. SANT RAM AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-21
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 28,1964

MAYA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
SANT RAM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BACHARAM DHONDI KATKAR VS. LAXMAN ANANDRAO KATKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1991-7-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a revision under S. 115, Civil P.C., by Maya Ram, plaintiff, against the order dated 28-4-1962 of the First Additional Munsif of Meerut, dismissing with costs his suit for delivery of possession under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
(2.)THE material facts of the case are that on 30-9-1959 Maya Ram, plaintiff, instituted the present suit against Sant Ram and others for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from interfering with his possession over the Kotha detailed in the plaint. On the request of the plaintiffs commission was issued to find out as to who was in possession and the Commissioner visited the spot on 2-10-1959, though he submitted his report dated 20-10-1959 somewhat late. The plaintiff was, according to him, dispossessed from the Kotha on 9-10-1959 after the Commissioner had visited the spot. He, therefore, applied for amendment of the plaint including the reliefs sought for. The amended relief was for delivery of possession under S. 9 of the Specific-Relief Act, after dispossession of defendants Nos. 1 to 6 or of such defendant as was found to be in possession on the date of delivery of possession.
The Munsif framed issues as in a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and after recording evidence he gave the finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed after the Commissioner visited the spot on 2-9-1959. This date is wrong, the correct date being 2-10-1959. The necessary amendments were made under application dated 10-11-1959 and consequently dispossession of the plaintiff was within six months of the suit, the suit under S. 9 having been instituted. On 10-11-1959.

(3.)THOUGH the Munsif recorded the finding that the plaintiff had been dispossessed within six months-of the suit, he held that the suit under S. 9 was maintainable as the plaintiff had made reference to his title to the house in the main part of the plaint.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.