- (1.) THIS second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Proce dure, 1908, is directed against the judg ment and order dated 10-05-1978, passed by learned Civil Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 1973, whereby the trial court's judgment and order dated 12-03-1973, 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. Plaintiff's case is that the parties are residents of village Sajgori, Patti Malla Silore, Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora. The plaintiff Govind Singh and defendant No. 2 and 3 Anoop Singh and Kundan Singh are the joint owners of the house in suit Situ ated 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 al leged 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 state ment in which it is pleaded that plain tiff and defendant No. 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 plain tiff, 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 of the P. Wise, the de fendant No. 1 has matured his title over the house in suit by virtue of adverse possession.
(3.) OTHER defendants filed their writ ten statements but did not contest the suit. 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 be tween the parties? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is in arrears of rent, if so, its ex tent? 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 dis puted house through the alleged exchange deed? 6. Whether defendant No. 1 is li able to ejectment from the house in suit as alleged in para 5 of the plaint?;