LAWS(SC)-1996-1-79

UMA SHANKER DEAD Vs. SARABJEET

Decided On January 23, 1996
UMA SHANKAR Appellant
V/S
SARABJEET Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Sarabjeet, was originally the sub-tenant of one Damri Lal, the predecessor in title of the present appellants, in respect of lands situated within the limits of the Municipal Board, Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur, which are the subject matter of this appeal. These lands, at all material times, were governed by the provisions of the Banaras State Tenancy Act, 1949.

(2.) Damri Lal had brought a suit being Suit No. 46 of 1955 against the respondent for ejectment of the respondent from the suit lands under Section 154 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act, 1949, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadohi. On 1-10-1955 the parties compromised the suit and a consent decree was accordingly passed on 4-11-1955. The compromise which is dated 1-10-1955 and is signed by both the parties including the respondent, states that the respondent relinquishes his rights in the land in favour of Damri Lal. The respondent who is the defendant there, has stated:

(3.) According to the appellants, under this compromise decree possession of the said lands was surrendered by the respondent to Damri Lal. They further contend that the respondent interfered with Damri Lal's possession in July 1957. As a result, proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of Damri Lal. These proceedings finally concluded on 30-3-1959. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadohi, held that the respondent was in possession of the said lands. As a result, immediately thereafter on 12-4-1959, a suit was filed by Damri Lal under Section 159 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act before the Revenue Court for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of possession. Damri Lal, however, died during the tendency of the suit and the present appellants were brought on the record of the suit in his place. The suit remained stayed for several years. Ultimately, the trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 26-7-1969, held that the plaintiffs (appellants herein) were entitled to succeed and passed a decree in their favour.