R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below by virtue of which the Defendant -Appellant was held not to be tenant as he denied the title of the Plaintiff -Respondent in a suit filed on the basis of title against the Defendant -Appellant.
(2.) ORIGINALLY , the Plaintiff -Respondent has filed a suit that he was owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a registered will executed by Mohd. Akbar in Plaintiffs favour and the Defendant -Appellant was tenant thereof at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant Appellant has committed default in payment of rent. It appears that the Defendant -Appellant denied the title of Plaintiff -Respondent and claimed the title in himself on the basis of an oral gift -deed coupled with a memorandum alleged to have been executed by Mohd. Akbar on 29.1.1977. The parties are closely related. To cut short the controversy, it may be mentioned that the Plaintiff ultimately filed a suit after giving a notice under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, for the vacation of the premises in dispute. Compensation for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute was also claimed. These are the brief facts for determination of controversy.
(3.) THERE is another important plea which figured in both the courts below regarding the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. Both the courts below also held that this is not a matter of the nature of small causes and the suit is maintainable in civil court. Both the courts below have also given a finding regarding the registered will in favour of Plaintiff -Respondent.;