SHIVESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. GHURAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals by special leave arise from three different suits filed by plaintiff Smt. Raj Rup Kunwar for possession of certain plots of land from the defendants in each suit under S. 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('Abolition Act', for short), alleging that on the relevant date she was holding the land involved in the suit as an intermediary as sir and has accordingly become bhumidhar under S. 18 of the Abolition Act and she being a disabled person within the meaning of S. 157, the defendant in each case being an occupant, has become an asami by the combined operation of S. 20 (b) (i) and S. 21 (h) of the Abolition Act and, therefore, she is entitled to recover possession from the defendant in each suit. The defendant in each suit contested the claim of the plaintiff contending that the defendant in each case has become an adhivasi and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer in whose court the suit was instituted agreed with the defendant and dismissed the suits and the first appeal in each suit to the District Judge, Varanasi and the Second Appeal to the High Court at Allahabad did not meet with success. Hence, the present appeals by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff who died in the course of litigation. The appeals were consolidated by the High Court and were disposed by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts concurrently found and not in dispute are that the deceased plaintiff was an intermediary who held the land involved in the dispute as sir and under S. 18 of the Abolition Act became a bhumidhar of the land. Defendant in each case was the tenant of sir. Deceased plaintiff was paying more than Rs. 250/- per annum and, therefore, Section 16 would not be attracted. Plaintiff was a disabled person within the meaning of S. 10 and S. 157. All the Courts are agreed that the defendant in each suit was recorded as tenant of sir in the khasra of 1356 Fasli.

(3.) On these undisputed facts a narrow but interesting question raised in these appeals is whether the defendants in each case would become an adhivasi under S. 20 (a) (i) or an asami by the combined operation of S. 20 (b) (i) and S. 21 (1) (h) of the Abolition Act.