Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.05.1989 passed by Civil Judge, Malihabad, District Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.197 of 1982 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents was allowed and judgment and decree dated 24.04.1982 passed by the VIth Additional Munsif, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.30 of 1978 was set aside and the suit of plaintiff-respondents was decreed. This appeal was admitted on 25.07.1989 and an interim order was passed. It was directed to list this appeal for final hearing in the month of January, 1990. It is important to mention here that the appeal was not admitted on any substantial question of law inasmuch as no substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the appeal.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the original plaintiffs brought the suit stating that Raja Ram, grandfather of Chhotey Lal (original plaintiff No.2) had a son namely, Pyarey Lal who was the Karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of his son and grandson. The defendant-appellant was tenant of the ancestral house, a joint Hindu family property. On 30.06.1973, Pyarey Lal died and, thereafter, the defendant-appellant became the tenant of original plaintiffs. It was alleged that the defendant was not paying rent since 1973 for which the plaintiffs gave a composite notice dated 12.11.1973 demanding the arrears of rent and also terminating the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the said house. It was alleged that Rs.200/- was due as arrears and prayer was made to pass a decree for the aforesaid amount along with damages at the rate of Rs.2 per day from the date of termination of tenancy and releif was claimed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property and recovery of arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs.240/-.
(3.) The defendant-appellant contested the suit and filed his written statement. The defendant-appellant contended that he was a tenant of Shri Pyarey Lal Nigam in respect of the house in question which was not a joint Hindu family property. Shri Pyarey Lal Nigam was the sole owner of the house in question who acquired it alone. It was the case of the defendant-appellant that Pyarey Lal Nigam had executed a will in favour of the defendant-appellant on 25.06.1973 which was got registered by the Sub-Registrar inspite of the objection of Dinseh Prakash Nigam. It was also said that Pyarey Lal entrusted the management of other land and house to the plaintiffs by the same will. Ownership of the plaintiffs over the house in question was denied by the defendant-appellant.;