1 S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.6/2008 Bhopal Singh and ors. vs. Sukha Ram and anr. Date : 11.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PS Rathore, for the appellants. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants' suit filed against the respondent Sukha Ram was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.7.2006 and the appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2007. It appears from the facts of the case that two suits were filed against same defendant Sukha ram – one by the plaintiffs who are appellants in this second appeal and another by Sirvi Choyal Samaj. During pendency of the present suit filed by the present appellants, it was alleged that defendant Sukha Ram handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs/appellants. However, in the suit filed by Sirvi Choyal Samaj, the trial court, after trial, held Sukha Ram to be tenant of Sirvi Choyal Samaj. The 2 appeal preferred by Sukha Ram against said judgment and decree of eviction was dismissed by the first appellate court. In second appeal, this Court remanded the matter to the first appellate court for recording a specific finding about relationship of landlord and tenant between Sirvi Choyal Samaj and Sukha Ram. After remand, the first appellate court again held that Sukha Ram is tenant of Sirvi Choyal Samaj. Against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court after remand, second appeal was preferred before this Court which was dismissed by this Court (by me) on 10.1.2008. Thereby, the finding of Sukha Ram being tenant of Sirvi Choyal Samaj became final. The present appellants/plaintiffs in their suit no.70/2004 faced with this situation have preferred this second appeal. In a suit for eviction against a tenant, the question of title is not relevant and the Court could not have decided the question of title. The Court could have decided the relationship of landlord and tenant. In present appellants' suit, when the present appellants themselves submitted that they got possession of the suit property from the tenant by compromise, then their suit could have been dismissed by the trial court and no further relief could be granted to the plaintiffs. For that purpose, the trial court could not have entered into any enquiry in view 3 of admission of both the parties that the possession of the suit property was delivered by Sukha Ram to the plaintiffs/appellants. It appears that the present appellants apprehending that the finding recorded in Sirvi Choyal Samaj's case that Sukha Ram is their tenant, will be adverse to their interest, have preferred this appeal. As observed above, directly or indirectly, the question of title of Sirvi Choyal Samaj or present appellants cannot be decided in either of the suits- one filed by the present appellants or filed by Sirvi Choyal Samaj. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants, two suits were consolidated and, therefore, should have been decided together by the courts below. Said plea is also of no help to the appellants because of the plain and simple reason that the appellants cannot pray for more relief than what they got by amicable settlement as they submitted that the possession of the property was delivered to them by their alleged tenant. In the changed circumstances and in view of the subsequent event of delivery of possession by Sukha Ram to the plaintiffs during pendency of the suit, made the 4 suit of the plaintiffs/appellants infructuous. Therefore also, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya