Durga Dass vs Sharda Devi and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Respondent Sharda Devi filed a suit against General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet Wireless Limited and the present appellant and two other persons, namely Shankar Dass and Dayal Ram, seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet, from erecting any tower on the suit land, which she claimed to be jointly owned and possessed by her with the present appellant and two other defendants, named above.

It was pleaded that General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet Wireless Limited, had started taking steps for erection of a tower on the suit land, after obtaining consent from the appellant and other defendants, namely Shankar Dass and Dayal Ram, but she also being a joint owner her consent was also required for erecting tower.

During the pendency of the suit, there was a compromise between the plaintiff and General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet, which was reduced into writing. The compromise provided that plaintiff-respondent Sharda Devi shall be paid rent @ Rs. 800/ - per month, in respect of her share in the joint property and this payment of rent was "subject to partition".

It appears that in terms of the aforesaid compromise, suit was not withdrawn. The suit was decided by the trail Court, vide judgment dated 20.6.2008. Suit was dismissed. It was held that plaintiff could claim rent @ Rs. 800/ - per month only after partition of the suit land, as the compromise stated that she would be paid rent @ Rs. 800/ - per month, "subject to partition".

Appeal was filed by respondent-plaintiff Sharda Devi before the learned District Judge. It came to be decided by the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court. Appellate Court has held that as per compromise rent was to be paid to the plaintiff till partition took place and if in the partition the property did not fall to the share of the plaintiff, she would not be entitled to any rent (impliedly after such partition).

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Interpretation of compromise deed Ext. PW1/D by the first Appellate Court appears to be reasonable and workable. In case trial Court''s view that rent was to be paid only after partition, is accepted, that would lead to uncertainty, because till the partition takes place plaintiff Sharda Devi would not get any relief and also she may not get the property on which tower is to be installed, in the partition that may take place, in future.

Moreover, appellant cannot have any grievance against the order passed by the first Appellate Court, as the rent is not to be paid by him, but by the General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet, respondent No. 2 herein. Appellant and other co-sharers, impleaded as defendants, have already consented to the erection of the tower, by the said General Manager. Presumption is that they must have been compensated to the extent of their shares in the joint property and it is because of that that they consented to the erection of tower. In any case, when they have consented to the erection of tower by the General Manager, AIR Cell Dishnet, they can have no grouse against the payment of rent to respondent-plaintiff Sharda Devi by the said General Manager, in lieu of her share in the joint property, where the tower is erected/is to be erected. Thus, the appellant has no locus-standi to file the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.