Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Legal Representatives & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ranjeet Singh Kumpawat Advocate - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 251/2017
Decided on : 16-02-2021
Mr. Narendra Thanvi, Mr. Mahendra Thanvi, for the Appellant; Mr. N.M. Lodha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V.D. Dadhich, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord-tenant relationship must be established, and claims regarding a Will or agreement to sale must be specifically addressed to seek relief. Influence claims must be supported by evidence.
Headnote:
Will - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - [Ex.1] - Eviction suit - 13(3) - The court dismissed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the appellants, as the landlord-tenant relationship was not established. The Will (Ex.1) contained the bequest of the quarter in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs failed to claim any relief regarding the Will or the agreement to sale mentioned in it. The courts found no evidence to support the influence claim against the defendant and upheld the dismissal of the suit and appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, claiming a landlord-tenant relationship. The defendant was alleged to have influenced the deceased landlord to execute a Will in his favor. The courts found no evidence to support the influence claim and dismissed the suit and appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the landlord-tenant relationship was not established and the plaintiffs failed to claim any relief regarding the Will or the agreement to sale mentioned in it. The influence claim against the defendant was not supported by evidence.
Issues: Establishment of landlord-tenant relationship, influence claim against the defendant, and relief claimed regarding the Will and agreement to sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts upheld the dismissal of the suit and appeal as the landlord-tenant relationship was not established, and the plaintiffs failed to claim any relief regarding the Will or the agreement to sale mentioned in it. The influence claim against the defendant was not supported by evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the courts found no evidence to support the influence claim against the defendant and upheld the dismissal of the suit and appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.4, Jodhpur and judgment and decree dated 24.05.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the suit and appeal filed by the appellants have been dismissed.
2. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by plaintiffs - Krishna Kumar and Laxmi Kumar, sons of Brij Mohan Lal, however, Laxmi Kumar was given in adoption to one Makkhan Lal inter-alia with the submissions that a bungalow and certain quarters were situated at 4th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, wherein, the defendant was in possession of quarter No.7 as tenant @ Rs.300 per month.
3. The property in question belonged to late Brij Mohan Lal, regarding which during his life time one suit was filed by Raj Kumar against deceased Brij Mohan Lal before the District Judge, Jodhpur on 07.04.1978. During pendency of said suit Brij Mohan Lal came in contact with defendant - an Advocate, who started giving advice pertaining to the said litigation, he filed his Vakalatnama in the said case which led to the creation of the relationship.
4. Averments were made that the suit property i.e. quarter No.7, was in possession of one Bhugro Mal against whom suit for eviction was filed which was vacated in June 1983, whereafter, premises were let out to the defendant, the tenancy was oral regarding which no documents were executed or receipt was issued.
5. It was claimed that the accounts of rent and litigation expenses were kept oral only, certain other litigations were initiated pertaining to the property, wherein, also the defendant filed Vakalatnama on behalf of late Brij Mohan Lal.
6. It was claimed that on account of ill health of Late Brij Mohan Lal, the defendant advised him to execute a Will based on which, 7 stamps of Rs.5/- each (non-judicial) were purchased on 05.09.1998 by plaintiff No.1 and were handed over to the defendant, who prepared 7 similar Wills and got the same signed by Brij Mohan Lal without his reading them.
7. The signatures were got on the Wills at house only. The counsel Basant Raj Mehta and Notary V.D. Purohit had come with him. Basant Raj Mehta had identified. It was claimed that the defendant kept all the 7 Wills with him and after one month, informed that two witnesses were required to sign the same, based on which, he got signatures of his son and one Vinayak Rai, his friend on the Will.
8. Thereafter, the Wills were kept with defendant. Brij Mohan Lal died on 11.11.1999 and for the first time in December 1999, the Will was produced indicating that the defendant was owner of the disputed quarter.
9. It was claimed that the Will was void against the plaintiffs.
10. It was further indicated that the indications made in the Will pertaining to the agreement to sale were also incorrect.
11. Ultimately following reliefs were claimed in the suit:-
12. Written statement was filed by the defendant denying the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and indicating that the deceased Brij Mohan Lal was being advised by other Senior advocates and the applicant was engaged only for the purpose of taking dates.
13. Whereafter, from time to time other advocates were also appointed in the litigation regarding which the averments were made in the plaint.
14. It was denied that in 1983 after the eviction of Bhugro Mal from the disputed quarter, the same was let out to the defendant. It was indicated that legal representatives of Bhugro Mal vacated the premises on 30.07.1984, after the same being vacated, a part of it was let out to Purshotam and another part was let out to Govind Singh regarding which the receipts have been produced in the suit filed by Raj Kumar.
15. It was also indicated that the defendant till the year 1985 was staying at some other place, sisters of the plaintiff filed suit for partition in which also the property was not included as the same had already been transferred. It was further indica
