Sharma, J.—This is an application for revision by the defendant Raghuvardayal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar in a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that he had been in possession of a certain shop in Malakhera bazar, Alwar and that it had been let out on his behalf to Shivchand who was the defendant No. 2 in the case. Shivchand in collusion with the defendant Raghuvardayal executed a rent note in the latters favour on 30th March, 1950. On the basis of this rent note a suit was brought by Raghuvardayal against Shivchand for ejectment and it was decreed on 27th November, 1950. In execution of this decree for ejectment Raghuvardayal got possession of the shop in dispute from Shivchand. The plaintiff came to know about this when possession had been taken on 3rd August, 1951 by Raghuvardayal. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that by the action of the defendant, he was dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law. He therefore prayed for possession of the property in dispute.

3. The defendant alleged in his written statement that the shop in dispute was the joint property of Hargovind plaintiff as well as Raghuvardayal defendant and that the plaintiffs father Ramkanwar was managing the shop on behalf of both the owners. It was alleged that although the rent note had been executed by Shivchand in favour of Ramkanwar and his son Hargovind, the plaintiff, on 4th October, 1948, but later on by the consent of the plaintiffs father Ramkanwar a rent note dated 3th March, 1950 was executed by Shiv Chand in favour of Raghuvardayal and he was put in possession of the property in dispute. Allegations of collusion were denied and it was pleaded that the suit could not be brought u/s 9 of the Act under the circumstances of the case.

4. The suit was originally instituted in the court of the Munsif, Alwar on 14th August, 1951, but later on it was found that the valuation was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. The plaintiff, therefore, got the plaint back from the court of the Munsif, Alwar, on 30th October, 1953 and filed it in the court of the Civil Judge, Alwar, One of the objections taken by the defendant was that the suit was time-barred in the circumstances of the case.

5. The following three issues were framed in the suit—

(1) Is the suit within limitation?

(2) Is the present suit maintainable despite the fact that the defendant got possession through court in execution of a decree?

(3) Was the plaintiff in possession of the property in dispute legally and he has been dispossessed, so he is entitled to get the possession back?

6. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 9th March, 1954. Later on issues Nos.1 and 3 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment dated 30lh August, 1954. It is against these judgments and the decree in pursuance of them that the defendant Raghuvardayal has come in revision to this Court.

7. I have heard Sri J. P. Jain on behalf of the applicant and Shri R. K. Rastogi on behalf of the plaintiff opposite-party It has been argued by Shri Jain that sec. 9 of the Act applies only when a person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. It was argued that in this case the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the property in dispute at the time of the alleged dispossession and therefore he could not bring the suit u/s 9 of the Act. It was argued that whatever right the plaintiff possessed, was that of realising the rent from Shivchand and he could not under the circumstances take actual possession of the property in dispute from the defendant. Reliance was placed on certain rulings of various High Courts which I shall cite presently.

8. On behalf of the opposite-party it was argued by Sri Rastogi that in the first inst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document