IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Sunita Yadav, J.
Jyoti Sharma (Smt.) v. Vishnu Goyal & Another
Second Appeal No. 657 of 2009 (Gwalior): against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by the 13th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2009; Decided on 7.8.2024
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O.41 R.27 -- additional evidence -- appellant/plaintiff claimed ownership over disputed shop on basis of Will -- trial Court and first appellate Court disbelieved execution of said Will -- petition for probate filed during pendency of appeal -- appellant failed to show why petition for probate was not filed during trial -- also failed to show that trial Court refused to accept aforesaid evidence of Will, which should have been accepted, or that evidence in question was not known to her or despite her best efforts, she was unable to produce it -- held -- this evidence was created to fulfill lacuna after dismissal of suit by two competent Courts -- additional evidence cannot be accepted to fulfill lacuna -- it was the duty of appellant to inform probate Court that Will has already been scrutinized by two Courts and has not been found to be genuine -- such created evidence cannot be admitted in evidence -- held further -- this provision does not apply when, on basis of evidence on record, appellate Court can pronounce satisfactory judgment. [Para 28]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- scope of power -- taking additional evidence on record is entirely within discretion of Court -- discretion is to be used sparingly -- it is only a judicial discretion, circumscribed by limitation specified in the rule itself -- appellate Court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable party to raise new point in appeal -- similarly, where party on whom onus of proving certain point lies, fails to discharge onus, he is not entitled to fresh opportunity to produce evidence as Court can, in such case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. [Para 28]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- finding of fact -- finding recorded on basis of appreciation of evidence, even if perverse, cannot be set aside in second appeal -- it is a pure finding of fact -- disbelieving a particular witness is a pure finding of fact -- not open for interference in appeal u/s. 100. [Para 32]
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- substantial question of law -- non-examination of second attesting witness -- Courts below disbelieved testimony of first attesting witness and such finding is based on appreciation of evidence -- execution of Will found to be suspicious on various other grounds -- plaintiff failed to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will -- held -- finding recorded on basis of appreciation of evidence, even if perverse, cannot be set aside in second appeal -- it is a pure finding of fact -- substantial question of law wrongly framed. [Para 32]
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2(b), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(f) -- disclaimer of title -- there had never been any attornment of tenancy by tenant-defendant in favour of plaintiff -- plaintiff neither received rent, nor signed any receipt as landlord -- plaintiff totally a third party for tenant -- as per plaintiff, after death of original landlord, husband of plaintiff was receiving rent -- he would be landlord for tenant as per S. 2(b) -- suit not filed by person who is natural successor of original landlord, nor landlord, but by person who is deriving title on basis of Will -- Will not proved in accordance with law -- held -- defendant had every right to challenge Will -- held further -- suit has been filed u/s. 12(1)(f) also, therefore, plaintiff is required to prove her ownership, not just landlordship -- Courts below have not erred in considering genuineness of Will as tenant can always challenge derivative title of plaintiff. 2002 (2) JLJ 312 (SC) and (2000) 1 SCC 451 followed. 2005 (1) JLJ 173 and 2007 (2) MPLJ 52 relied on. 2000 (II) MPWN 142, (2010) 1 SCC 277 and (2018) 2 SCC 352 distinguished. [Paras 39, 44 & 53]
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- defendant never disclaimed himself to be tenant -- always admitted his tenancy -- only asked plaintiff to prove her derivative title in order to protect his tenancy -- held -- no ground u/s. 12(1)(c) made out. [Para 40]
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- disclaimer of title -- title of deceased landlord admitted -- tenant could not have challenged title of natural successor -- plaintiff not successor but is claiming title on strength of Will -- defendant has every right to challenge derivative title of plaintiff by challenging Will. [Para 45]
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 116 -- disclaimer of title -- defendant never admitted title of plaintiff -- estoppel not applicable. (1987) 4 SCC 319, 2017(1) JLJ 190 = (2017) 2 SCC 274, (2006) 5 SCC 532 and (1988) 3 SCC 137 distinguished. [Para 46]
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(c) -- disclaimer of title -- ground is made out only on fulfilling three conditions -- first, defendant challenges title of plaintiff after attornment of tenancy in favour of plaintiff -- second, tenant renounces his character as tenant -- third, tenant sets up title of property in third person -- there was no attornment of tenancy between plaintiff and defendant -- defendant admitted himself to be tenant -- defendant did not plead any third person to be owner of property -- none of the essentials of S. 12(1)(c) made out. (1997) 5 SCC 329 and (1990) JLJ 209 = (1990) 2 BLJ 1 (SC) distinguished. [Para 49]
(10) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- bona fide need -- proof of title -- even landlord is required to prove his title for seeking decree of eviction -- in eviction case, title not required to be proved as strictly as in title suit, but plaintiff has to prove that she is owner of disputed shop. 2012 (4) MPLJ 153 relied on. [Para 52]
(11) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 73, 101 and 102 -- comparing signature on Will -- Court compared signatures on its own motion -- held -- Court is expert of experts -- report given by expert not binding on Court -- exercise of discretion by trial Court to match signatures cannot be challenged at second appellate stage -- propounder has to remove all suspicious circumstances -- since inception, defendant cross-examined plaintiff on point of mismatch of signature -- it was plaintiff’s duty to prove signature of testator -- plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove such signature -- on the contrary, plaintiff filed various documents which made signature of testator suspicious -- Court below did not commit any illegality in comparing signature on Will and admitted signature on rent receipt -- held further -- plaintiff wanted Court to rely on fact that Will bears signature of testator therefore, in view of Ss. 101 and 102 of Evidence Act, plaintiff should have sought expert report -- plaintiff failed to do so -- Court below has not committed any illegality in matching signature on its own. [Para 55]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 41 fuŒ 27 & vfrfjä lk{; & vihykfFkZuh@okfnuh us olh;r ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr nqdku ds LokfeRo dk nkok fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; vkSj çFke vihy U;k;ky; us mä olh;r ds fu"iknu ij vfo'okl fd;k & çkscsV ds fy, vthZ vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku çLrqr dh xbZ & vihykfFkZuh ;g ugha n'kkZ ldh fd çkscsV dh vthfopkj.k ds nkSjku D;ksa çLrqr ugha dh xbZ & ;g Hkh n'kkZus esa vlQy jgh fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us olh;r dk iwoksZä lk{; Lohdkj djus ls bUdkj fd;k- tks Lohdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk vFkok ;g fd ç'uxr lk{; mldh tkudkjh esa ugha Fkk ;k mlds Hkjld ç;Ruksa ds ckotwn og mls is'k ugha dj ldh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g lk{; nks l{ke U;k;ky;ksa }kjk okn dh [kkfjth ds mijkar deh iwjh djus ds fy, l`ftr fd;k x;k Fkk & vfrfjä lk{; dks deh iwjh djus ds fy, Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & çkscsV U;k;ky; dks ;g lwfpr djuk vihykfFkZuh dk drZO; Fkk fd nks U;k;ky;ksa }kjk igys gh olh;r dh laoh{kk dh tk pqdh gS vkSj çkekf.kd ugha gksus dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk pqdk gS & ,sls l`ftr lk{; dks lk{; esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g mica/k rc ykxw ugha gksrk tc vihy U;k;ky;] vfHkys[kxr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij- lek/kkuçn fu.kZ; lquk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 28½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 41 fuŒ 27 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & vfrfjä lk{; vfHkys[k ij ysuk iw.kZr% U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj esa gS & foosdkf/kdkj ferO;;rk ls ç;qä fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & ;g Lo;a fu;e esa fofufnZ"V dh xbZ lhek ls ifjlhfer U;kf;d foosdkf/kdkj ek= gS & vihy U;k;ky; dks lkekU;r% fdlh i{kdkj dks vihy esa u;k fcanq mBkus ds fy, u;k lk{; is'k djus ugha nsuk pkfg, & blh çdkj] tgka ,slk i{kdkj ftl ij fdlh fcanq dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj gksrk gS] Hkkj dk fuoZgu ugha dj ikrk] og lk{; is'k djus ds fy, uohu volj dk gdnkj ugha gksrk D;ksafd ,sls ekeys esa U;k;ky; mlds fo:) fu.kZ; lquk ldrk gS rFkk fu.kZ; lqukus ds fy, fdlh vfrfjä lk{; dh vko';drk ugha gksrhA ¼iSjk 28½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & rF; dk fu"d"kZ & lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ] foi;ZLr gks rc Hkh] f}rh; vihy esa vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;g fo'kq) rF; dk fu"d"kZ gS & fdlh fof'k"V lk{kh ij vfo'okl djuk fo'kq) rF; dk fu"d"kZ gS & /kkjk 100 ds v/khu vihy esa gLr{ksi ;ksX; ughaA ¼iSjk 32½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & fof/k dk lkjoku~ ç'u & f}rh; vuqçek.ku lk{kh dh ijh{kk ugha gksuk & fupys U;k;ky;ksa us çFke vuqçek.ku lk{kh ds ifjlk{; ij vfo'okl fd;k rFkk ;g fu"d"kZ lk{; ds ewY;kadu ij vk/kkfjr gS & olh;r dk fu"iknu vU; vusd vk/kkjksa ij lansgtud ik;k x;k & okfnuh olh;r ds fu"iknu dks ?ksjus okyh lansgtud ifjfLFkfr;ka dks nwj djus esa vlQy jgh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ] foi;ZLr gks rc Hkh] f}rh; vihy esa vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;g fo'kq) rF; dk fu"d"kZ gS & fof/k dk lkjoku ç'u xyr fojfpr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 32½
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 2¼[k½] 12¼1½¼x½ rFkk 12¼1½¼p½ & gd dk çR;k[;ku & vfHk/kkjh çfroknh us dHkh Hkh Lo;a dks okfnuh dk vfHk/kkjh ugha ekuuk & okfnuh us u rks HkkM+k çkIr fd;k] u Hkw&Lokeh ds :i esa fdlh jlhn ij gLrk{kj gh fd, & vfHk/kkjh ds fy, okfnuh iw.kZr% ijO;fä & okfnuh ds vuqlkj ewy Hkw&Lokeh dh e`R;q ds mijkar okfnuh dk ifr HkkM+k çkIr dj jgk Fkk & /kkjk 2¼[k½ ds vuqlkj vfHk/kkjh ds fy, ogh Hkw&Lokeh gksxk & okn u rks ,sls O;fä }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k tks ewy Hkw&Lokeh dk uSlfxZd mÙkjkf/kdkjh gS] u Hkw&Lokeh }kjk gh] vfirq ml O;fä }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k ftldk gd olh;r ds vk/kkj ij O;qRiUu gqvk Fkk & olh;r fof/k ds vuqlkj lkfcr ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & çfroknh dks olh;r ij vk{ksi djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj Fkk & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & okn /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ ds v/khu Hkh çLrqr fd;k x;k gS blfy, okfnuh }kjk ek= Hkw&LokfeRo gh ugha- viuk LokfeRo Hkh lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS & fupys U;k;ky;ksa us olh;r dh çkekf.kdrk ij fopkj dj xyrh ugha dh D;ksafd vfHkèkkjh lnSo oknh ds O;qRiUu gd ij vk{ksi dj ldrk gSA 2002 ¼2½ ts,yts 312 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ rFkk ¼2000½ 1 ,llhlh 451 vuqlfjrA 2005 ¼1½ ts,yts 173 rFkk 2007 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 52 voyafcrA 2000 ¼2½ eŒçŒ ohDyh uksV~l 142] ¼2010½ 1 ,llhlh 277 rFkk ¼2018½ 2 ,llhlh 352 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 39] 44 ,oa 53½
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ & çfroknh us dHkh Lo;a ds vfHk/kkjh gksus dk çR;k[;ku ugha fd;k & lnSo viuh vfHk/k`fr Lohdkj dh & viuh vfHk/k`fr dh laj{kk ds fy, dsoy okfnuh ls viuk O;qRiUu gd lkfcr djus dks dgk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ ds v/khu dksbZ vkèkkj fl) ughaA ¼iSjk 40½
¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ & gd dk çR;k[;ku & e`r Hk&Lokeh dk gd Loh—r & vfHk/kkjh uSlfxZd mÙkjkf/kdkjh ds gd ij vk{ksi ugha dj ldrk Fkk & okfnuh mÙkjkf/kdkjh ugha] cfYd olh;r ds cy ij gd dk nkok dj jgh gS & çfroknh dks olh;r ij vk{ksi dj okfnuh ds O;qRiUu gd ij vk{ksi djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gSA ¼iSjk 45½
¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 116 & gd dk çR;k[;ku & çfroknh us dHkh okfnuh dk gd Lohdkj ugha fd;k & foca/k ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼1987½ 4 ,llhlh 319] 2017 ¼1½ ts,yts 190 % ¼2017½ 2 ,llhlh 274] ¼2006½ 5 ,llhlh 532 rFkk ¼1988½ 3 ,llhlh 137 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 46½
¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e- 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼x½ & gd dk çR;k[;ku & ;g vk/kkj dsoy rhu 'krksZ dh iwfrZ gksus ij fl) gksrk gS & çFke] çfroknh Lo;a dks oknh dk vfHk/kkjh ekuus ds mijkar oknh ds gd ij vk{ksi djs & f}rh;] vfHk/kkjh viuh vfHk/kkjh dh Hkwfedk dk R;kx djs & r`rh;] vfHk/kkjh fdlh ijO;fä esa laifÙk dk gd [kM+k djs & çfroknh us dHkh Lo;a dks okfnuh dk vfHk/kkjh ugha ekuk & çfroknh us Lo;a ds vfHk/kkjh gksus dks Lohdkj fd;k & çfroknh us fdlh ijO;fä dk laifÙk dk Lokeh gksus dk vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k & èkkjk 12¼1½¼x½ dh dksbZ Hkh vfuok;Z 'krZ fl) ughaA ¼1997½ 5 ,llhlh 329 rFkk ¼1990½ ts,yts 209 % ¼1990½ 2 ch,yts 1 ¼,llh½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 49½
¼10½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & okLrfod vko';drk & gd dk lcwr & csn[kyh dh fMØh dh bZIlk ds fy, Hkw&Lokeh rd dks viuk gd lkfcr djuk vko';d gS & csn[kyh ds ekeys esa gd mruh vfrfu;efu"Brk ls lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha ftruk fd gd ds okn esa- ijarq okfnuh dks lkfcr djuk gksxk fd og fookfnr nqdku dh Lokfeuh gSA 2012 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 153 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 52½
¼11½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 73] 101 rFkk 102 & olh;r ij gLrk{kj dh rqyuk & U;k;ky; us Lo;a dh çsj.kk ij gLrk{kj dh rqyuk dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & U;k;ky; fo'ks"kKksa dk fo'ks"kK gS & fo'ks"kK }kjk fn;k x;k çfrosnu U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj ugha & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk gLrk{kjksa dh rqyuk djus ds fy, foosdkf/kdkj ds ç;ksx dks f}rh; vihy ds çØe ij vk{ksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrk & çfriknd dks leLr lansgtud ifjfLFkfr;k¡ nwj djuk gksrh gSa & vkjaHk ls gh çfroknh us gLrk{kj ugha feyus ds fcanq ij okfnuh dh çfrijh{kk dh & olh;rdrkZ ds gLrk{kj lkfcr djuk okfnuh dk drZO; Fkk & okfnuh us mu gLrk{kjksa dks lkfcr djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha fd;k & rRçfrdwy] okfnuh us vusd nLrkost çLrqr fd, ftuls olh;rdrkZ ds gLrk{kj lansgkLin gks x, -- fupys U;k;ky; us olh;r ij fd, x, gLrk{kjksa vkSj HkkM+k jlhn ij fd, x, Loh—r gLrk{kjksa dh rqyuk dj dksbZ voS/krk ugha dh & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & okfnuh pkgrh Fkh fd U;k;ky; bl rF; dk voyac ys fd olh;r ij olh;rdrkZ ds gLrk{kj gSa] vr% lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 101 vkSj 102 dh –f"V ls] okfnuh dks fo'ks"kK ds çfrosnu dh bZIlk djuk pkfg, Fkh & okfnuh ,slk djus esa vlQy jgh & fupys U;k;ky; us Lo;a gLrk{kjksa dk feyku dj dksbZ voS/krk ugha dhA ¼iSjk 55½
JUDGMENT
1. This Second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2009 arising out of Judgment and decree dated 30.4.2007 passed by 5th Civil Judge, Class – 1, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2007.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff ) filed a suit for eviction u/s 12(1)(a)(c) & (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, “Act”) and arrears of rent against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) narrating therein that the plaintiff owns a house situated at Hanuman Chouraha, Lashkar, Gwalior bearing Municipal House No. 45/26. The said house has been owned by the plaintiff by virtue of a Will dated 12.5.99 executed by her father-in-law, Shri Ramjidas Sharma. Tenanted shop is situated at ground floor of aforesaid house wherein, father of defendants, Late Shri Kishanlal has been inducted as tenant on 9.11.53 by fatherin-law of plaintiff. After demise of Late Shri Kishanlal, defendants have become tenant in the shop at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The defendants have paid the rent promptly till December, 1999, thereafter, they have been constant defaulter even after repeated request since January, 2000. So, the arrears of rent for 22 months i.e till the date of filing a suit (October, 2001) is Rs. 6,600/-.
3. It has further been pleaded in the plaint that the husband of plaintiff has already been running a shop of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. adjoining to eastern side of tenanted premises and the same shop has been given to the minor sons of plaintiff through a Will dated 12.5.99. Husband of plaintiff alongwith his father since his lifetime has been running the business of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. Plaintiff is also willing to start the same above mentioned business of sweets, namkeen, gajak etc. with the aid of her husband, and, for this very business, plaintiff requires the tenanted shop bonafide as she is not available with any non-residential accommodation within the municipal limits. Plaintiff has further pleaded about the convenience, suitability and feasibility of the tenanted shop for her business in paragraph 6 of plaint. Plaintiff has also pleaded about non-suitability of an another available accommodation owned by her husband in context of its' present usage.
4. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that the denial of her title by defendants makes out a case under section 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Therefore, plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 29.8.2001 to defendants demanding arrears of rent and requested to evict the tenanted shop. Same has been received by defendants, but of no avail. Hence, plaintiff filed the present suit.
5. The defendant No. 1 has submitted his written statement and denied the relation of landlord and tenant between him and plaintiff in respect to tenanted shop. It is averred that the Will dated 12.5.99 itself mentions about prior ownership of Sualal who died in January 1984. Ramjidas was not the son of Sualal, but, he was the son of Madhavlal. So, Ramjidas was merely a rent collector on the instructions of Sualal. Moreover, Ramjidas did not have any right to execute the Will dated 12.5.1999 as heirs of Sualal were also alive at the time of his death. Sualal did not execute any Will, if produced, then it would be a forged one.
6. It has further been pleaded by the defendants that they have already paid the rent to husband of plaintiff upto 30.11.2001. It is also averred that many times rent has been enhanced under the threat of eviction. However, husband of plaintiff never issued the rent receipts. Since, rent is already paid upto 30.11.2001, so, any arrears from January 2000 onwards are denied.
7. It has further be
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.