JUDGMENT
Milap Chand Jain, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated December 18, 1979 whereby the plaintiff’s application for deleting issue No. 11 was allowed and issue No. 11 was deleted.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision may briefly be stated as: the plaintiff respondent Jagdishchand filed a suit against the defendant Jethmal with the allegations that he had purchased the suit-property on 9-2-1978 from Shree Jaisalmer Lodravpur Parshavnath Jain Shwetamber Trust, Jaisalmer through a registered sale deed and the defendants were informed by the President and the Joint Secretary of the Trust through notice dated 9-2-1978.
3. The defendants denied the receipt of the notice and they also challenged the sale on the ground stated in paras 16,17 and 22 of the written statement. The trial court framed as many as 14 issues. Issue No. 11 on translation is as under:
Whether the purchase of the property in question by the plaintiff is invalid as alleged in paras 16, 17 and 22 of the additional pleas of the written statement ?
4. The plaintiff moved an application for deletion of the aforesaid issue on the ground that issue No. 11 is not relevant as the plaintiff has come with the case that he had purchased the property from the trust and the defendant has become his tenant on account of transfer of the title in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application and deleted issue No. 11. Dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Civil Judge, the defendant No. 1 has preferred this revision.
5. I have heard Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
6. It may be mentioned that the present petitioner has not challenged the title of the Trust. He admits that the property is of the Trust but his plea is that he continues to be the tenant of the Trust as the transfer in favour of the plaintiff is not valid on the ground that the Trust is not a registered one and that, the persons, who have executed the sale-deed have no authority to execute the sale-deed on behalf of the Trust. He has further challenged his liability to make payment of rent to the plaintiff on the ground that the Trust has not informed him that the title of the property has been transferred to the plaintiff. As regards the plea that the defendants have not been informed about the transfer of the property a specific issue has been framed, which is issue No. 2, Issue No. 2 is to the effect as to whether the plaintiff had purchased the property in question on 9-2-1978 the information whereof was given by the said Trust to the defendants as alleged in para 2 of the plaint. There is a further issue regarding the transfer of the title in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s status as tenant of the transferee Issue No. 3 is to the effect as to whether, the plaintiff has become the owner of the property in question as such the defendant has become his tenant.
7. The question arises as to whether the plaintiff’s purchase could be challenged by the plaintiff on the ground stated in paras 16, 17 and 22. It may be mentioned that whether such a plea could be taken is an important question so instead of deleting the issue an additional issue should have been framed as to whether the pleas raised in paras 16, 17 and 22 of the written statement are open to be taken by the defendants and simultaneously, the issue should have been raised as to what is the effect of the notice of transfer by the trust to the tenants. The authorities referred to by the learned Civil Judge, do not throw any light on the question involved in the present case. In the case of Udaichand v. Surajmal 1969 RLW 468, the question was as to whether it is open to the tenants to challenge the title of the vendor if the suit is instituted by vendee against the tenant. In that case, that suit was brought for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the tenant of one Bhoordass from whom he had purchased the premises by a registered sale deed. There was a rent-note executed by the defendant tenant in favour of Bhoordass. The tenant took a plea that Bhoordass had no right to alienate the property. The trial court refused to frame the issue and, therefore, the defendant went in revision, which was rejected and it was observed that the defendant tenant would be estopped from challenging the title of the vendor. In the instant case, the Trust’s title as such is not challenged by the defendant, but those who have acted on behalf of the trust their authority is challenged and further the transfer is challenged on the ground that being a public trust, the property cannot be transferred unless the trust is registered. So, on facts, Udaichand’s case is distinguishable.
8. Having given my anxious consideration, in my opinion, the deletion of Issue No. 11 was not justified. Instead of deleting the issue as stated above, two more issues should have been framed and the whole suit should be tried and thereafter all the issues should be decided simultaneously. This revision petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and issue No. 11 shall continue to remain as it is. The following further issues are framed as issues No. 15 and 16:
Issue No. 15 : Whether the pleas raised in paras 16, 17 and 22 of the written statement are open to the defendants?
Issue No. 16 : Whether in case, it is proved that Shree Jaisalmer Lodravpur Parshavnath Jain Shwetamber Trust, has informed the defendants regarding the transfer of the property to the plaintiff through notice dated 9-2-1978, what is its effect ?
The parties are left to bear their own costs.