Harish Chandra Vs. Mohan Kanwar

Harish Chandra vs Mohan Kanwar

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 04, 1968

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760286

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760286
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Rajindar Sachar, J.
Decided On: Nov 04, 1968
Case Number: S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 276 of 1968
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Abatement - Legal representatives not brought on record--Abatement is total and appeal fails.;The appellant, who knew of the death of Sethani Mohan Kanwar in 1960, has taken no steps to implead her legal representatives. It is not disputed that the she left behind, her son Panmal, the respondent, of her sons and two...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harish Chandra

Respondent

Mohan Kanwar

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ramagya Prasad Gupta and Ors. v. Murli Prasad and Ors.
Reported In: 1976WLN(UC)475

Excerpt

.....allowed, it would lead to passing of contradictory decrees as the decree passed by the lower appellate court in favour of sethani mohan kanwar; cannot be set aside in the absence of her legal representatives. it is well settled that in such a case, abatement is total. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - a/1 in 1960, they bad subsequently recognised the defendant as their tenant and thus the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has come into being. indeed, be could not do so in view of the circumstances that be bad taken the stand that the plaintiffs were not his landlords. 5. i may note that the appeal is also likely to fail on the ground of abatement. it is well settled that in such a case, abatement is total......no rent deed from anandmal was proved. it, therefore, negatived the plea that anandmal was the landlord of the defendant, and held that the plaintiffs were competent to file the suit. both the courts below have thus come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were the landlords and were therefore competent to maintain the suit.4. as far as the arrears of rent was concerned, no evidence was led by the defendant to show that he had paid rent for the period to the plaintiff. indeed, be could not do so in view of the circumstances that be bad taken the stand that the plaintiffs were not his landlords. the finding therefore that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover rent from the appellant also, does not suffer from any infirmity and bat to be upheld.5. i may note that the appeal is also likely to fail on the ground of abatement. it appears that after the institution of the appeal, sethani mohan kanwar died in 1970. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, an application for impleading her legal representatives was filed in the court of 1970 the same, however, is not traceable on record and on august 2, 1976, the counsel gave up the name of sethani mohan kanwar and her name was deleted from the array of respondents. the result is that the appellant, who knew of the death of sethani mohan kanwar in 1970, has taken no steps to implead her legal representatives. it is not disputed that she has left behind, her son panmai, the respondent, other sons and two daughters, who are also her legal representatives. in the absence of the legal representatives, it is apparent that if the appeal was to be allowed, it would lead to passing of contradictory decrees as the decree passed by the lower appellate court to favour of sethani mohan kanwar, cannot be set aside in the absence of her legal representatives. it is well settled that in such a case, abatement is total. vide ramagya prasad gupta and ors. v. murli prasad and ors. : [1973]1scr63 .6. as a.....

Full Judgment

Rajindar Sachar, J.

1. The plaintiff respondent-landlords filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant-tenant-defendant on the ground that he was their tenant & has not paid rent & was in arrears of rent from July 1, 1960 to May 31, 1963 The appellant denied the allegation and maintained that be was not tenant of the plaintiffs. He also denied that he was in arrears of rent.

2. The lower court, by its judgment dated May 27, 1966, negative the plea of the appellant and held that the plaintiffs are the landlords. He also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to arrears of rent from July 1, 1860 to May 31, 1963, and thereafter, mesne profits from June 1, 1963 to the date of the institution of the suit He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. Aggrieved against that, the tenant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who accepted the plea of the tenant in so far as the eviction was concerned and eel aside the trial court's decree in so far as it has decreed eviction against the tenant. It has however affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court on the other ground, namely, decreeing of arrears of rent. The tenant has come tip to this Court in second appeal.

3. The plea of the tenant was that the plaintiffs were not his landlord. According to the tenant Anandmal, who is a younger brother of Panmal plaintiff and the son of Sethani Mohan Kanwar, the other plaintiff (since deceased), was his landlord. The lower appellate court has noted that the property in dispute originally belonged to Kanmal Lodha, the father of Panmal and Anandmal and husband of Mohan Kanwar and that the property is joint and that it is no body's case that the same has been partitioned. The lower appellate court has noted that though, originally, the plaintiffs have taken the stand that the defendant was not their tenant when they served notice Ex. A/1 in 1960, they bad subsequently recognised the defendant as their tenant and thus the relationship of the landlord and the tenant has come into being. There is no evidence on the record to show that Anandmal was the plea owner. No rent deed from Anandmal was proved. It, therefore, negatived the plea that Anandmal was the landlord of the defendant, and held that the plaintiffs were competent to file the suit. Both the courts below have thus come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were the landlords and were therefore competent to maintain the suit.

4. As far as the arrears of rent was concerned, no evidence was led by the defendant to show that he had paid rent for the period to the plaintiff. Indeed, be could not do so in view of the circumstances that be bad taken the stand that the plaintiffs were not his landlords. The finding therefore that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover rent from the appellant also, does not suffer from any infirmity and bat to be upheld.

5. I may note that the appeal is also likely to fail on the ground of abatement. It appears that after the institution of the appeal, Sethani Mohan Kanwar died in 1970. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, an application for impleading her legal representatives was filed in the court of 1970 The same, however, is not traceable on record and on August 2, 1976, the counsel gave up the name of Sethani Mohan Kanwar and her name was deleted from the array of respondents. The result is that the appellant, who knew of the death of Sethani Mohan Kanwar in 1970, has taken no steps to implead her legal representatives. It is not disputed that she has left behind, her son Panmai, the respondent, other sons and two daughters, who are also her legal representatives. In the absence of the legal representatives, it is apparent that if the appeal was to be allowed, it would lead to passing of contradictory decrees as the decree passed by the lower appellate court to favour of Sethani Mohan Kanwar, cannot be set aside in the absence of her legal representatives. It is well settled that in such a case, abatement is total. vide Ramagya Prasad Gupta and Ors. v. Murli Prasad and Ors. : [1973]1SCR63 .

6. As a result I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Harish Chandra vs Mohan Kanwar Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Rajindar Sachar, J.

Tenancy