INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The present suit has the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.1991 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge who vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.1986 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated the matrix of the case is as follows:-

i. Plaintiffs, Suraj Prasad and Madan Lal, had filed a suit for possession of shop no. 1467, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It had been alleged that the plaintiffs i.e. Suraj Parsad – Madan Lal are tenants under Madan Lal since 1943 at a monthly rent of Rs.57.50/- which had been increased to Rs.80/-. Rent note dated 11.07.1945 had been executed in the favour of the landlord.

ii. Plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are real brothers. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant no.1.

iii. Plaintiff no.2 was carrying on business of `paan, cigarette etc. in Shop No.1469/1, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. There was no electricity in that shop. Plaintiff was utilizing electricity from the adjoining shop. He got his electricity connection 10 to 12 years ago.

iv. In 1952, plaintiffs allowed their brother Chhagan Lal (now decreased) to carry on the plaintiffs business in the said shop which he continued till the time of his death. After his death, plaintiffs continued their business through their sons till 1965.

v. Defendant no.1 was well acquainted with accounts; he used to visit the disputed shop to write the accounts.

vi. In 1966, plaintiffs employed defendant no.3 to carry on his business at Rs.3/- per day which arrangement continued till January, 1967. Thereafter, defendant no.3 misappropriated the money of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs came to know about this and rebuked defendant no.3 who was dismissed from their service on or about 1967. As a revenge on 17.03.1967, defendants broke open the locks of the shops of the plaintiffs and illegally took possession of the said shop including the goods therein.

vii. Criminal complaint was lodged and proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated.

viii. Present suit was thereafter filed.

ix. Defendants contested the suit; they denied that the possession of the suit property had been taken by them forcibly. They claimed title in their own right.

x. Trial judge framed 8 issues. Issue no.2 was the crucial issue. It inter alia reads as follows:-

“Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit premises or whether the plaintiff is only a tenant as benamidar? OPD”

xi. While disposing of this issue, trial court dealt with the 13 witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff, of whom PW4, Sh.Dinesh Dayal, PW-6 Jaidev Gupta, PW-7 Ram Kishan and PW-10 Madan Lal were the relevant witnesses. PW-7 had proved Ex.P21, the rent receipt issued by the landlord, Sh.Madan Lal, in the name of Sh. Suraj Prasad. The landlord had been examined as PW-10. He had proved the other rent receipts as Ex.P28 to P37; these were issued in the name of the firm „Suraj Prasad Madan Lal.

xii. Trial court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence held that the tenancy was created in the name of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 had only acted as a mediator. All issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff except issue no.4 i.e. the issue of limitation on the basis of which the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed. Trial Judge while deciding Issue no.4 held that the plaintiff, as per his own averment, had been dispossessed from the suit premises on 17.03.1967; suit was filed on 12.06.1968 i.e. after the expiry of more than one year; dispossession was on 17.03.1967 i.e. 15 months before the date of the filing of the suit; suit was held to be barred by time. Provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act had been relied upon to non-suit the plaintiffs. It was accordingly dismissed.

xiii. In first appeal, the first appellate court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.9.1991 dismissed the appeal. Issue no.5 i.e. “whether the defendant took the possession illegall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document