Dwivedi, J. - (1.) BY our order dated April 28, 1961, we decided this appeal but we reserved reasons for the order. We are now setting forth the reasons.
(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 76/100 situate in Coolie Bazar, Kanpur. It belonged to one Smt. Janki Kuer. She was the absolute owner. The Appellant was her tenant. On June 2, 1946, she executed a will whereby she bequeathed the house to the 1st Respondent. Durga Prasad through whom the Ist Respondent instituted the suit culminating in this appeal was one of the Sarbarakars of the Ist Respondent. Smt. Janki Kuer died on June 6, 1946. Sometime after her death the 1st Respondent instituted suit No. 920 of 1947 in the court of the Judge of Small Causes at Kanpur for arrears of rent against the Appellant. In the suit the Appellants, filed a written statement apparently denying the first Respondent's title to the house. The Judge of the court of Small Causes returned the plaint since a question of title to immoveable property was involved in the suit. After the return of the plaint on July 28, 1947 the Respondent No. 1 served a notice on the Appellant terminating his tenancy on the ground of forfeiture of tenancy rights. The Appellant refused to quit and the Ist Respondent instituted a suit for his ejectment. The suit was founded on two grounds, namely (1) that the Appellant had denied the Ist Respondent's title in his written statement in the earlier suit and had consequently forfeited his tenancy rights, and (2) that the Appellant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The Appellant controverted the allegations in his written statement and claimed that he had not incurred forfeiture of his tenancy rights and that he had not committed wilful default in the payment of rent. He admitted that he had taken the house on rent from Smt. Janki Kuer but pleaded that after her death Smt. Vidya Wati, one of the Respondents in this appeal, took possession of her properties alleging herself to be her daughter and that he had in good faith paid a sum of Rs. 108 to her as advance rent for a year. He did not admit that the alleged will was executed by Smt. Janki Kuer in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The Munsif, who heard the suit, held that the will was not a genuine document and appeared to be forged and that the 2nd Respondent was, therefore, the owner of the property in suit as an heir of Smt. Janki Kuer. He also held that the Appellant had paid advance rent for one year to the 3rd Respondent. In view of his first finding, he did not express any opinion on the question whether the Appellant had forfeited his tenancy rights. But he was of the opinion that the denial by him of the Ist Respondent's title was bona fide. In view of these findings he dismissed the suit.
(3.) ON appeal the Civil Judge held that the will in favour of the Ist Respondent was a genuine and valid will. Differing again from the Munsif he also held that the appellant had forfeited his tenancy rights by denying the title of the 1st Respondent in the rent suit. He, therefore, allowed the appeal of the Ist Respondent and decreed its suit for possession of the house.;