PRAKASH GUPTA,J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Shri M.M. Ranjan, that the appellant has a substantial case and substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. The plaintiff did not appear in the witness box and as such, on the basis of the statements of power of attorney holder, denial of title cannot be proved. The Will and the alleged family settlement Ex.18, which were relied by the trial Court, were not proved because the plaintiff did not come to the witness box. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said documents. A mere denial of execution of rent note does not amount to denial of title. There is no evidence on record which proves that plaintiff was having any relation with the firm named Ramsahmal Ramjidas. The appellant has produced documentary evidence that he was paying the rent to Onkarmal and after his death, to his son Vishwanath. Despite the same, a long silence on the part of the plaintiff in not claiming the rent and allowing them to receive the rent clearly shows that Onkarmal and after his death Vishwanath was the landlord of the appellant. The finding has been recorded by the courts below by taking into consideration the proceedings of the Court in another case is contrary to law. The trial court has not appreciated the fact that Vishwanath resiled from his earlier statements.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Shri J.P. Goyal appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is sufficient evidence which proves that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff. Suit for eviction filed by a co-owner in whose share the said property fell in partition is maintainable and tenant cannot object to such partition. The property was bequeathed by Smt. Gilli Devi to plaintiff. A family settlement was also effected between the parties and the suit property fell in the share of the plaintiff. Before filing the present suit, another suit was filed by Shri Vishwanath wherein it was admitted by him that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property. Therefore, the present appellant cannot allege that the respondent is not the owner of the suit property. In this way, the appellant clearly denied the title of the plaintiff. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record concurrently held that the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.;