In a suit for possession, where the defendant claims adverse possession, the execution of a rent-note by a previous occupant is crucial to establish tenancy and determine the limitation period.

Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - TENANCY - TITLE - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - LIMITATION - RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT, 1950 - SECTION 15(1) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff Gopali filed a suit for possession of a portion of the house property, alleging that Prabhu Narain, her father, was the owner and had gifted it to her. Defendant Chouthmal contested the suit, claiming ownership and denying tenancy. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Prabhu Narain's title was extinguished by Mst. Gora's adverse possession. The first appellate court reversed the decision, decreeing possession to the plaintiff on the basis of title.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the defendant's application to amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession, considering the importance of the issue and the belated nature of the application. The court remanded the case to the trial court for framing additional issues, allowing parties to adduce evidence, and deciding the suit afresh.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant Chouthmal was a tenant of Prabhu Narain? 2. Whether Mst. Gora had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation? 4. Whether the defendant could amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The courts below did not give a categorical finding on the execution of the rent-note by Chander, which was crucial to establish his tenancy. 2. The trial court erred in holding that Mst. Gora's adverse possession extinguished Prabhu Narain's title, as there was no finding on the execution of the rent-note. 3. The first appellate court erred in holding that the suit was within limitation, as the adverse possession of Mst. Gora and Chouthmal, as independent trespassers, could not be tagged. 4. The amendment of the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession was allowed, considering the importance of the issue and the belated nature of the application.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the defendant's application to amend the written statement, set aside the decree of the first appellate court, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after framing additional issues and allowing parties to adduce evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of Chouthmal deceased defendant No. 1 in Civil Original Suit No. 513/64, against the decree of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 3rd Nov., *80, reversing the decree of Munsif Jaipur City (West), dated 16th Sept., 69 and decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for possession of a portion of the house property marked F.G. & H. in the site-plan. filed along with the plaint, and for an amount of Rs. 50 20, with a right to recover damages at the rate of 5/- per month from the date of the institution of the suit, till the delivery of possession of the said portion of the property by the appellants to plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

2. The facts in brief are that on 17th Dec., 64, plaintiff-respondent Gopali instituted Civil Suit No 513/64, against Chouthmal deceased and Prabhu Narain. It was alleged that Prabhu Narain, father of the plaintiff, was owner of the house-property marked ABCD in yellow colour in the site-plan, filed along with the plaint. Out of this house-property, the houses marked FGH, along with the chowk, Taj and Gokha, were gifted by Prabhu Narain in favour of the plaintiff by a gift-dated dated 29th Jan., 64. which was registered on 4th Feb., 64; and thus, the plaintiff became the owner of the houses marked FGH, along with the chowk etc. It was stated that Chouthmal, defendant No. 1 was the tenant of Prabhu Narain in the houses marked FGH on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- w.e.f. 2nd Mar., 58, and he had paid rent only upto 1st Dec., 63. It was stated to be an oral tenancy. Defendant No. 1 was intimated of the gift-deed orally by Prabhu Narain, and by operation of law, defendant No. 1 became tenant of the plaintiff Ejectment of defendant No. 1 was claimed on grounds of default and denial of title. In the alternative, the plaintiff based his suit on the basis of a title, in case, the tenancy was held not to be proved. It was stated that the ancestors of Prabhu Narain were the owners of the property marked ABCD, which included the portion marked FGH. There had been a prior litigation between Gangabux. father of defendant No. 2, and Chander, son of Dalu, who was in occupation of the house-portion of defendant No 2 as tenant, and that suit was decreed in favour of Gangabux, on 1st July, 08. Thereafter, there was a compromise between Gangabux and Chander, and the latter executed a rent-note in favour of Gangabux on Miti Ashad Budi 5 Samvat-1967. After the death of Chander, his widow, Mst. Gora continued to occupy the houses marked FGH as a tenant and she paid rent at the rate of 2 annas and 6 paise per month, and also executed a rent-note on 2nd Mar., 43. Mst. Gora died in the year ' 54; and before her death, she had handed over vacant possession of the house in her occupation to Prabhu Narain. The house-portion marked FGH remained vacant for about four years, and thereafter, they were let out to Chouthmal, defendant No. 1, on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-, on 2nd Mar., 58. Chouthmal did not pay any rent after 1st Dec., 63.

3. So far as Prabhu Narain defendant No. 2 was concerned, he substantially supported the case of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Chouthmal, defendant No. 1, by a written-statement, filed on 15th Apr., 65. Chouthmal pleaded that he was not a tenant in the houses marked FGH, and that he had not taken these premises on rent from Prabhu Narain, and had also never paid any rent to him. He asserted that the house-property marked FGH was in his ownership since the time of his ancestors. Prabhu Narain had never been in its possession. It was also stated that Prabhu Narain had also previously filed false case against Mst. Gora, the grandmother of Chouthmal, but, he was not successful in establishing his title. It was also denied that Mst. Gora had vacated this house-property at any time.

4. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish tenancy of Chouthmal, defendant No. 1, as alleged by her, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document