Navin Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is second appeal by plaintiff Tara Chand against the appellate decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated March 5, 1981, reversing the decree passed by Addl. Munsif -cum -Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaiur City on Sept. 25, 1969 and dismissing Civil Suit No. 398/1960 for declaration and possession, filed by the appellant.
(2.) TARA Chand appellant had instituted Civil Suit No. 398/1960 in the court of Munsif (East), Jaipur against Phool Chand deceased (now represented by respondents Nos. 1/2, 1/3 and 1/5) and against Smt. Raja Devi and Shyam Das with the averments that he had purchased a land surrounded by compound and having tin covered house situated in Chokari Hawaii Shahar East, outside Gangapol Gate, Bas Badanpura by virtue of a sale deed dated Nov. 30, 1948 for a consideration amount of Rs. 499/ -. After purchase of this property, he obtained permission from the Municipal Committee, Jaipur in January, 1950 and constructed a wall in this compound and affixed tin shed. It was alleged that the appellant thereafter installed a flour mill after purchasing the same under the tin shed. He then mentioned various transfers of this flour mill effected since the year 1954. However, since the 'Ahata' land (also called 'Nohara') belonged to the appellant, therefore, the purchasers of the flour mill used to give rent of this property to the appellant. Initially, Lal Chand Danamal had executed a rent note in favour of the appellant on Jan. 21, 1956 and later on by Shyam Das defendant No. 3 on Aug. 22, 1959. Phool Chand deceased was maternal -grand -father of the appellant. The appellant and his mother mostly used to live with Phool Chand and it was Phool Chand who had maintained and brought up the appellant. He states that he had lately started cultivation and also had begun to earn his livelihood and to reside separately from Phool Chand but his mother lived with Phool Chand. As Phool Chand was his maternal -grant -father, he had his influence upon the appellant. Some years after the purchase of this compound land by the appellant, Phool Chand told the appellant that he should transfer the compound land in favour of appellant's mother so that she can maintain herself. Later on, Phool Chand told the appellant that as the mother of the appellant was a lady, she will not be able to lookafter this compound land and, therefore, the appellant should execute a relinquishment deed in favour of Phool Chand. As the appellant was maintained by Phool Chand and had full trust in him and was under his dominating influence, he executed a relinquishment deed with respect to the above property in favour of Phool Chand in January, 1950. Despite the execution of the relinquishment deed, the appellant continued to be in possession of the compound land and was realising rent from the tenants. Later on, Phool Chand became somewhat intemperate and therefore, the appellant demanded from Phool Chand the return of the relinquishment deed and to cancel the same but he refused to do so and on the contrary, Phool Chand got a rent note executed in his favour from Shyam Das, defendant No. 3.
(3.) THE appellant proceeded on further to state that as he had executed the relinquishment deed of 6th Jan, 1950 on account of undue influence exercised upon him by his maternal -grant -father, he revoked the relinquishment deed on July 29,1959 and intimated about it to Phool Chand by a notice dated 3rd August, 1959. The appellant then came to know that Phool Chand had transferred this 'Ahata' land in favour of Smt. Raja Devi, defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated May 17,1960. It was further alleged that the tenant Shyam Das was also in collusion with Phool Chand and stopped paying rent to the appellant and he has also orally denied the title of the appellant and, therefore, possession suit was also being filed by the appellant against Shyam Das.;