SHEO NARAIN Vs. JANKI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1994, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 3/91(4/91), by which he accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8-3-1991, passed by the learned Additional-Munsif, Sikar, in Civil Suit No. 95/1987.

(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellant, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against this decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, vide his judgment and decree dated 22-1-1994, and the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction was decreed on the ground that the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs. This decree has been challenged in this appeal by the defendant-appellant.

(3.) The submission of the counsel for the defendant-appellant is that there is neither any pleading nor issue on the point of denial of title, hence the lower appellate Court was not justified in passing a decree of eviction on the ground of denial of title. His second submission is that the defendant in his written statement admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of only half of the disputed property and as such there was no denial of the title of the plaintiffs. His third submission is that denial of title must be prior to the filing of the suit. If there is any denial of title during the pendency of the suit, no decree for eviction on that ground can be passed. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court, passed in Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, AIR 1994 SC 227.