DUDACHAN Vs. SREENIVASA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I see no reason to interfere. The receiving order has become final, and, quite apart from that, clauses (54) and (55) of S.2 of Act IV of 1961 make it clear that a varomdar like the petitioner has, as such, only the right to cultivate the land in question with paddy (and in the absence of some other contract which would not be part of the varom arrangement, no right of fishing which is the right the petitioner claims) and that the person under whom he holds is the person in possession under law, that clause (40) makes it equally clear that a varomdar like any other licensee has only a right of occupation which is not possession in the legal sense of that word although it is called possession for the purposes of the Act, and that a varomdar being made a tenant under clause (50) only by the device of an inclusive definition it does not follow that he satisfies the definition in the body of the clause as a person allowed to possess and to enjoy the land; no grounds whatsoever are made out for the removal of the third party receiver (against whose appointment the petitioner unsuccessfully moved in appeal and in revision) and the appointment of the petitioner (the plaintiff in the suit) in his place.