MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendants Gorilal and Damodar, father and son, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, affirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff, Jaipur City, in a suit for rent and eviction.

2. It is admitted between the parties that the defendants appellants had taken the shop in suit with a chobara on it from Rampratap and Badrinarain on a rent of Rs. 6/- per mensem by a rent-note dated the 4th January, 1944, Ex. 1. It is further admitted that Rampratap and Badrinarain had made a gift of the suit property to Mst. Shantidevi, wife of the plaintiff Gopichand and that on her death, Triveni Devi, her daughter, succeeded to the property and that the latter also died unmarried on the 14th April, 1957. On the 30th December, 1955, a notice was served on behalf of Mst. Triveni Devi on the defendants terminating their tenancy and asking them to hand over possession of the suit property. Eventually, the plaintiff Gopichand brought the present suit for recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 216/-and also for ejectment on the 18th January, 1958. The sole ground on which this suit was brought was that the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rent from the 4th January, 1955, to the 4th January, 1958.

3. The defendants resisted the suit on a number of grounds. They contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to bring the present suit as he was not the lawful heir of Mst. Triveni Devi, and in any case, there were other heirs who had not been impleaded as plaintiff. They further contended that a sum of Rs. 70/- bad been sent by them by a money-order (Ex. A-1) which was received by Mst. Triveni Devis counsel on the 29th January, 1956, presumably this being the rent due from the 4th January, 1955, upto some time in December, 1955. It was finally contended that as the entire amount of the rent in arrears had been deposited by them on the first date of hearing, they were entitled not to be evicted from the suit premises.

4. Both courts below repelled the contentions of the defendants and decreed the plaintiffs suit for ejectment. It is against this decision that the defendants have now come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. The first contention raised before me by learned counsel for the defendants is that the plaintiff Gopichand had no right to institute the present suit as he was not the lawful heir of Mst. Triveni Devi, his daughter, who was the last holder of the property in suit and on whose behalf the notice of ejectment had been given. It was further contended in this connection that it was the admitted position between the parties that the step mother of Mst. Triveni Devi was alive when Gopichand instituted the present suit. The contention of learned counsel is that it was this step-mother who was the lawful heir of Mst. Triveni Devi and not the latters father Gopichand. In support of this argument, learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph 145 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, 12th Edition, at page 218. The relevant portion of this paragraph reads as follows:—

"A maidens property according to all the schools, passes in the following order:—

(1) Uterine brother;

(2) mother;

(3) father;

(4) fathers heirs in order of propinquity; e.g., the full sisters of maidens father were pre ferred to the half sisters;

(5) kinsmen of the deceased herself, that is, her mothers heirs in order of propinquity."

The submission of learned counsel is that the mother was a nearer heir to the maiden daughter than the father and the expression mother included step mother also. It may be noted, however, that for this last mentioned proposition, learned counsel was unable to cite any direct authority.

6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent relies on clause (7) of paragraph 43 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla 12th Edition at page 126, which deals with the order of succession among sapindas. Adverting to the step-mother, the learned author su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document