Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Plaintiffs-appellants have instituted a suit for injunction on the ground that the property in dispute, which was a shop, had been let out to the father of the defendants-respondents, who died, and that consequent upon death of tenant, the tenancy was continued with eldest son of the deceased occupying the premises and after having remained in possession for a period of almost one year, the tenancy was surrendered by the eldest son after accepting a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The surrender deed is also alleged to have been executed. It was stated that even thereafter, the other members of the family, particularly defendant no.2 (respondent no.1 in the present appeal) was again trying to get in possession over the suit property, and therefore, the suit for injunction was instituted.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant no.2 with the allegation that the tenancy upon the death of original tenant developed upon all heirs, who became joint tenants, and therefore, it was not open for defendant no.1 (respondent no.2 in the present appeal) alone to surrender the tenancy. A case of will was also set up by the defendant no.2, on the basis of which it was also stated that she became entitled to inherit the tenancy exclusively. A counter claim also filed by the defendant no.2 seeking restitution of possession over the disputed shop on the ground that eviction was unlawfully made, and therefore, restitution was also sought.
(3.) Parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim. Trial court decreed plaintiffs-appellants' suit with the finding that once the tenancy had been surrendered by eldest son, the other members of the family would be bound by such act of the eldest son.;