Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is an application for revision by the defendant Raghuvar Dayal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar in a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2. The plaintiff came to court with the allegations that he had been in possession of a certain shop in Malakhera bazar, Alwar and that it had been let out on his behalf to Shivchand who was the defendant No. 2 in the case. Shivchand in collusion with the defendant Raghuvardayal executed a rent note in the latter's favour on 30-3-1950. On the basis of this rent note a suit was brought by Raghuvardayal against Shivchand for ejectment and it was decreed on 27-11-1950. In execution of this decree for ejectment Raghuvardayal got possession of the shop in dispute from Shivchand. The plaintiff came to know about this when possession had been taken on 3-8-1951 by Raghubardayal. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that by the action of the defendant, he was dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in due course of law. He therefore prayed for possession of the property in dispute.

I may say here that in this particular case according to the finding of the learned Civil Judge with which I have no reason to disagree, the tenant had put Raghuvar Dayal defendant in possession of the property in collusion with him. This Raghuvar-dayal filed a suit for ejectment and the tenant entered into a compromise and suffered a compromise decree for ejectment being passed against him. In execution of that decree Shivchand tenant was dispossessed. Under these circumtances to my mind the plaintiff was entitled to actual possession of the property in dispute and the defendant Raghuvar-dayal who came into possession of that property certainly interfered with the possession of the plaintiff.