- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and de­cree dated 21.10.2003, passed by learned District Judge, Uttarkashi, in Suit No. 33 of 1998, whereby said court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,376.45 and for the possession of the property in suit.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Ram Chandra Ramola was owner of land, measuring 6 Nali 5 Mutthi, bearing Khasra Nos. 3843, 3844, 3858, 3859, 3860, 3861 and 3862, situated in Barkot (Uttarkashi). Vide registered sale deed dated 24.02.1971, Ram Chandra Ramola transferred the land along with buildings standing thereon to defendant No. 4 Inder Singh (since deceased). De­fendants No. 4A to 4J are the legal rep­resentatives of the deceased defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 Inder Singh had a dispute with Ram Chandra Ramola over the property in suit, on which Suit No. 40 of 1970 was instituted, and the parties to said suit (i.e. Ram Chandra Ramola and Inder Singh) entered into compromise on 17.09.1977, and defendant No. 4 got full possession of the aforesaid property trans­ferred to him in Execution Case No. 14 of 1978. Thereafter, Inder Singh (defend­ant No. 4), during his lifetime executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff Ummed Singh Gosain @ Ummed Girl on 07.12.1988. Where after on 09.12.1988, possession of the property in suit was delivered to the plaintiff. In the two rooms situated in the buildings, District Coopera­tive Bank, Branch Barkot was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 165/- per month from the period of original owner Ram Chandra Ramola. After the property was transferred to Inder Singh, the Branch started making payment of rent to the defendant No. 4. The plaintiff's case is that after defendant No. 4 transferred the property to the plaintiff, the Branch did not pay rent to the transferee (plaintiff). On this, the plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit No. 01 of 1995 against the defendants No. 2 and 3 (i.e. the District Cooperative Bank and its Barkot Branch) for recovery of arrears of rent and evic­tion. However, a title dispute was raised in said suit, and plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit before the District Judge, Uttarkashi.
(3.) THE suit was contested by defend­ant No. 2, defendant No. 3 and defend­ant No. 4 In their written statements de­fendant No. 2 and defendant no. 3 stated that they are making payment of rent to defendant No. 4 and the plaintiff is not entitled to the rent claimed by him. In his separate written statement filed by defend­ant No. 4 it is stated that only land was sold by him to the plaintiff not the build­ing standing thereon, as such, the answer­ing defendant No. 4 continued as a land­lord of the premises and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed.;