ALIARIA Vs. GHHANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High court arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, now represented by his legal representatives, who are the appellants before us, was the Bhumidar of certain plots of land in village Sarkaripura in Varanasi District and that he was entitled to get possession of those plots as Bhumidar with which defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) had no concern. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court decreed the same. The High court on appeal restored the decree of the trial court.

(2.) The facts lie within a narrow compass. One Jhuru father of defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein) Smt. Sundariya was the original tenant of the plots in dispute. She died when Mst. Sundariya was still a child. She was brought up by Chhanoo respondent No. 1. During her minority he managed the property left by Jhuru including the plots in question. Mst. Sundariya was married when she came of age. It appears that Mst. Sundariya prior to December, 1965, obtained Bhumidari rights in the plots by depositing ten times the rent. On December 19, 1956, she sold these plots to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500. 00. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff came into possession after the sale deed had been executedand registered. According to the revenue entries defendant No. 1 was shown as guardian of Mst. Sundariya. For that reason he kept on making attempts ro interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. There were proceedings under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure court which ended against the plaintiff in September 1957. That led to the filing of the suit.

(3.) Mst. Sundariya admitted the case of the plaintiff but the suit was contested by Chhanoo. According to him the rights of Mst. Sundariya got extinguished on her marriage and thereafter he continued to remain in possession as owner, his possession being adverse. It was pleaded that the entries in the revenue papers could not affect his rights. The trial court referred the is us about Sirdari rights claimed by defendant No. 1 to the revenue court for a finding. The revenue court held that Chhanoo was the sirdar. On that finding the trial court dismissed the suit.