MANPHUL BAI Vs. LADHURAM
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-1-12
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 02,1952

MANPHUL BAI Appellant
VERSUS
LADHURAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VYANKAT AWACHIT V. ONKAR NATH [REFERRED TO]
DRUPAD CHANDRA V. DINDUMOYI DASI [REFERRED TO]
CHIMANLAL GANPATRAM V. NATWARLAL MAGANLAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMZANI V. BANSIDHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM DITTA MAL V. CHARAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDA KURUP V. BEEKKU [REFERRED TO]
MAQSOOD ALI V. HUNTER [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR KRISHNA PROSAD LAL SINGH DEO VS. BARABONI COAL CONCERN, LTD [REFERRED TO]
BILAS KUNWAR VS. DESRAJ RANJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SEKENDAR ALI MRIDHA VS. SADARUDDIN BHUNIYA [REFERRED TO]
PATTRACHARIAR VS. ALAMELUMANGAI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
SHAMAJI NARAYAN VS. GOVIND RANGACHARYA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COTTON CO LTD VS. RAGHUNATH HARI DESHPANDE [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANATH CHAKRAVARTY VS. KALICHARAN CHAKRAVARTY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ranawat, J. - (1.)This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Sawai Jaipur Gangapur, dated the 7th September 1949, by which the decree of the first Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs.
(2.)Manphul Bai. widow of Lalchand, filed a suit against Ladhuram and Gulab Bai in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, on the 15th of November 1943 for ejectment and for rent in respect of a shop for three years amounting to Rs. 1800/-. The rent was claimed from 28th October 1940 to 27th October 1943 at. the rate of Rs. 600/- per annum on the basis of a rent note executed by Ladhuram on the 27th of August 1938, which is Ex. 21 on the record. The shop in respect of which rent and ejectment are claimed by the plaintiff is situated in Johri Bazar, Jaipur City, and is admittedly said to have been the property of one Chhogalal, who died in the month of Chait in Sambat year 1957 leaving behind him his widow Mohar Bai and an adopted son Phulchand. Phulchand died in the month of Asarh in Sambat year 1967 leaving behind him his adoptive mother Mohar Bai and his widow Gulab Bai. After the death of Phulchand, Gulab Bai is said to have adopted one Lalchand in Sambat year 1968. Lalchand also died on the 1st day of the dark half of the month of Chait in St. year 1990 corresponding to the 1st day of March 1934 leaving behind him his adoptive mother Gulab Bai and grand-mother Mohar Bai and his widow Manphul Bai. Mohar Bai died on the 21st of November 1937 and after the death of Mohar Bai the relations between the two widows Gulab Bai and Manphul Bai became strained. Originally, Manphulbai filed a suit for rent and ejectment in respect of the very same shop against I adhu-ram and the suit was finally dismissed by the Jaipur High Court on the 28th of March 1941 on the ground that Manphulbai's name was mentioned in the rent note which was the basis of the suit as a co-promisee and Manphul Bai not having been joined as one of the defen-dants in spite of the order of the Court in that behalf the suit of the plaintiff was not main-tainable. The plaintiff Manphul Bai after the decision of that case filed this suit against Ladhuram impleading Gulab Bai as a pro forma defendant. No relief was claimed against Gulab Bai but a decree was claimed for rent and ejectment against Ladhuram only. The basis of this suit is a rent note executed by Ladhuram, which is marked Ex. 21 and which is dated the 27th August 1938. A copy of this document appears at p. 37 of the paper book. This rent note has been addressed both to Manphul Bai and Gulabbai but Manphul Bai has been described as the owner of the property and Gulab Bai as an elderly lady in the family. A notice, for ejectment was given by the plaintiff to Ladhuram and on his failing to vacate the shop this suit was filed. Ladhuram contested the suit on the ground that the rent note Ex. 21 even though executed by him was so executed on account of fraud. He pleaded that Gulab Bai was the owner of the shop and he had paid the rents in respect of the shop to Gulab Bai for the period for which the plaintiff had filed the suit. It was also stated on his behalf that the plaintiff alone could not serve a notice of ejectment without joining Gulab Bai with her. Gulab Bai also took the same defence as was taken by Ladhuram and she admitted that Ladhuram had been paying rent of this shop to her and that there was nothing due against Ladhuram on account of rent of this shop. She also denied the adoption of Lalchand and it was pleaded on her behalf that the plaintiff Manphul Bai had no locus standi to sue in respect of the disputed shop which was claimed by Gulab Bai to be her property which, she alleged, she inherited from her husband, Phulchand.
(3.)The trial Court held that Lalchand's adoption was proved and the plaintiff, the widow of Lalchand, was the owner of the property. Gulab Bai who was held to be the adoptive mother of Lalchand, had no interest in the property except her claim for maintenance. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in full against both the defendants so far as the amount of rent was concerned and against Ladhuram only for ejectment. On appeal. the learned District Judge set aside the decree of the first Court on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. He also held that the plaintiff failed to prove the adoption of Lalchand to Phulchand.


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