Honble Dr. Kothari, J.—This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, No.7, Jaipur City dated 22.12.1980. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant Prem Chand son of Shri Gulab Chand, the judgmentdebtor, now represented through his legal representatives.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the decree-holder-plaintiff Khajulal, now represented through his legal representatives Shri Motichand and others filed a suit for partition and possession of the half portion of a residential house known as “Haveli” situated at Chokadi Ramchandraji in Jaipur. The said Haveli was a joint Hindu Undivided Family property of Gulab Chand and one Maliram having half share each. In a decree passed in favour of one Ganga Pratap against defendant Gulab Chand in execution case No.654/42, the said half share of Gulab Chand of the Haveli was attached and auctioned, which was purchased by plaintiff Khajulal in a court auction on 6.1.1942 for a sum of Rs.1,005/- and the sale certificate in this regard was also issued by the Executing Court on 30.11.1942. The said decree-holder Khajulal filed an application for possession of the said one-half portion of Gulab Chand in the Haveli and the symbolic possession of the same was given to him on 17.11.1943 by the Bailiff of the Court with the following report, which is reproduced hereunder in Hindi and Urdu language as it is and the bracketed English translation as informed by learned counsel by referring to the dictionary.

^^tukc vyh

eSa e; xksfoUnflag pijklh fnukad 17-11-43 coä 12-30 cts fnu edku xqykcpUn gejk uqrjh ekSds ij igq¡pkA xqykcpUn ekStwn feykA mldks gqDe ls eqryk fd;k x;k rks c;ku fd;k fd dCtk nsus esa eq>dksa dksbZ mtj ¼inform½ ugha gSA tk;nkn lkSlkjh ¼joint½ gSA vk/kh dk dCtk ys ysA

g- xqykcpUn

Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Motichand & Ors. (Kothari, J.)

fygktk tfj;s <ksy ,yku dCtk fuLQ ¼half½ edku dk fd;k x;k vkSj fMxjhnkj dks tfj;s ,yku dCtk fnyk fn;k x;k vkSj fdjk;kukek rgjhj djkdj dCtk djk;k x;kA

tfj;s <ksy fdjk;kukek ekSfj[kk ¼written or dated½ bejkstk ¼today½ cj dkxt lknkdCtk fuLQ edku dk ys fy;kA

3. That on 10.9.1973 after the death of Khajulal, his successors Motichand and others filed the present suit for partition and possession of the one half share in the said Haveli belonging to the judgment-debtor Gulab Chand claiming the following reliefs in the suit, which is also reproduced in Hindi as given in the plaint, as under:-

^^¼d½ nkok oknhx.k f[kykQ izfroknh fMxzh Qjek;k tkdj dqy gosyh eqUntkZ en ua- 1 ds nks fgLls cjkcj ds fd;s tkdj oknhx.k ds fgLls esa tks tk;nkn ckbZ ehV~l ,UM ckm.M vkos ml ij n[ky tqnkxkuk oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkos vkSj pkSd] iksy] uky] rgkjr eqrdkZ j[kk tkosA

¼[k½ nkok oknhx.k f[kykQ izfroknh cdnj eq- 180 #i;k tjs fdjk;k o gtkZ o ckcr~ bU[krk fMØh Qjek;k tkdj tk;nkn eqUntkZ fdjk;kukek 24-9-58 ij ccsj[krh izfroknh oknhx.k dk dCtk djk;k tkosA

¼x½ ;kse nk;jh nkok rk bU[kyk tjs gtkZ ckcr~ bLrseky edkukr ;k tjs oklykr ckgj 5 #i;k ekfld ij jlwe yh tkdj olwy djk;k tkosA

¼?k½ [kpkZ eqdíek fnyk;k tkosA

¼M+½ nhxj nknjlh tks djhus balkQ gks oksg fnykbZ tkosA**

4. Learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues in the trial of the suit, which are reproduced from the impugned judgment, as under:-

“1. Whether half of the house detailed in para No.1 of the plaint which belonged to defendants father Gulab Chand was put to auction in execution case No.654/42 and was purchased by the plaintiffs ancestor Khajulal in Court auction sale?

2. Whether Gulab Chand after the said auction sale attorned as a tenant to said Khajulal and then to his sons by executing rent notes (including one of 24.9.58) and paying rent at the rate of Rs.5/6 per month to them.

3. Whether there exists a relationships of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit?

4. Whether an amount of Rs.872/- as rent and of Rs.902/- as damages for use and occupation is due to the plaintiff from the defendant?

5. Whether the defendant is a d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document