Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) For purposes of ascertaining prima faces nature of the case of the plaintiffs it has to be noticed that it is not in dispute that the defendants are owners of the properly in suit by virtue of sale deeds in their favor executed by the previous owners. As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment itself, it is common ground that at present it is an open plot of land and it does not have any structures thereon. The present suit was filed on 3rd/4th August 1992 in which the plaintiffs claimed to be living in the premises in suit. There are seven plaintiffs as per the memo of parties. If the properly in suit became an open piece of land on 30lh/31sl May 1992, the plaintiffs could not obviously claim to be residing in the properly on the date of the institution of the present suit. In fact the plaintiffs' claim for damages shows that the structures stood demolished that is why damages were claimed. The plaintiffs have claimed that they are tenants in portions of the property. Regarding plaintiff No.1 Khajan Singh it is staled that he Along with one Moti Ram was tenant "with respect to one room, three stores, one varandah and open space wrestling ground covered with Tin Shed measuring about 135 sq. yds. on a monthly rent of RS.100.00 for last about 40 years (more specifically described in Green Colour diagonal lines in the Site/Plan herewith)". Plaintiff No.1 claims to be living in the premises in .dispute having a ration card in his name at the address of the premises in dispule. A photo copy of an electric bill in the name of Moti Ram has been placed on record to show that he had an electric connection in his name at the premises in suit. It is further claimed that plaintiff No.1 and Moli Ram were running a Vyayamshala/Akhara in the premises. To support this claim for tenancy certain photo copies of old rent receipts executed by previous owners have been placed on record. Besides this there is another document which is a photo copy of statement alleged to have been made by one of the previous owners in another litigation in a civil court. The said statement also shows that Khajan Singh and Moli Ram we re tenants in the property having an area of 135 sq. yds.. The total area of the property in suit is 775 sq. yds. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff No.1 is on his own showing is to an area of 135 sq. yds. So far as the other plaintiffs arc concerned, they have not field any rent receipt or rent note to show that they are tenants in the properly. It is their case in the plaint that no rent receipt was ever issued in their favor by the landlords. On the other hand the photo copy of the statement of the previous landlord made in another suit to which reference has been made just before shows that the landlord was categorical in his statement that there was no other tenant in the property and rest of the property was lying vacant. To this extent the plaintiffs' own document belies the claim of plaintiffs 2 to 7 to tenancy in any portion of the premises in suit. To support their claim for tenancy plaintiffs 2 to 7 rely on certain photo copies of ration cards in favor of some of them, photo copy of pass book of a bank showing the address of the premises in favor of another. A copy of a voters lists.