1966 (4) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber 11, 1951 at the rate of ₹ 200/p.m. with interest and for payment of compensation at the same rate from the date of suit till the recovery of possession of their, share in the house. The facts which are not disputed before us are these: The property in dispute which is situate within the limits of the municipality of Bhagalpur was purchased jointly by five persons, Juri Mal, Gajanand, Ramasahai Sah, Jahuri Sah and Ramgali Sah. The first two of these are father and son (and were members of a joint Hindu family). Both of them are dead. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the sons and plaintiff 6 is the widow of Gajanand and plaintiff No. 5 is the widow of Jurimal. Jurimal, Gajanand (constituted a joint Hindu family) and plaintiffs 1 to 4 constit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was, therefore, not joined as party to the suit. The defendants denied the claim and -stated that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947) (hereafter referred to as the Act) as well' as by the rule of estopping. They also raised the plea that under the contract entered into between the two families ₹ 501- p.m. was payable as compensation and not ₹ 200/- p.m. as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to them the-suit was barred by the rule of estoppel. They contended that the claim for compensation for a period prior to the expiry of 3 years from the date of suit was barred by time. They also raised some other contentions in the written st....