- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-5-1978, passed by learned Civil Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1973, whereby the trial Court's judgment and order dated 12-3-1973, passed by Munsif Ranikhet, in, Civil Suit No. 45 of 1963, was set aside and said suit is decreed.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Brief facts of the case are that a Suit No. 45 of 1963 was instituted by plaintiff Govind Singh for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and also for ejectment of defendant No. 2 from the house in suit. Plaintiffs case is that the parties are residents of village Sajgori, Patti Malla Silore, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora. The plaintiff Govind Singh and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Anoop Singh and Kundan Singh are the joint owners of the house in suit situated in plot No. 652 in the aforesaid village. Defendant No, 1 is tenant in the house of the aforesaid three, on rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 did not pay rent since March, 1960 and denied the title of the landlords, as such, he was served with a notice of demand of arrears of rent and also for ejectment from the house in suit. However, no rent was paid in response to said notice, as such, the tenancy of defendant No. 1 stood terminated and thereafter the suit was filed. Defendant No. 1 (appellant in present case) contested the suit before the trial Court by filing the written statement in which it is pleaded that plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not the owners of the house in suit, nor are they the landlords. It is further pleaded by the contesting defendant that that house was constructed by Bache Singh, father of contesting defendant about 32 years before filing of the present suit. It is alleged that an exchange deed was entered between Bachche Singh, father of the defendant and Bagh Singh and Nek Singh, sons of Chandan Singh Kanyal on one side and Keshar Singh, Sobhan Singh and brother of the plaintiff, on the other hand. By way of said exchange deed a plot was given to the plaintiffs father on which the house in question was constructed by him (father of the defendant No. 1 ). It is further pleaded that even otherwise, the defendant No. 1 has matured his title over the house in suit by virtue of adverse possession.
(3.) OTHER defendants filed their written statements but did not contest the suit. 2 Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech The trial Court after going through the pleadings of the parties framed following issues in the suit : 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent, if so, its extent? 3. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiff entitled? 4. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in suit? 5. Whether the defendant No. 1 has become owner of the disputed house through the alleged exchange deed? 6. Whether defendant No. 1 is liable to ejectment from the house in suit as alleged in para 5 of the plaint?;