PATAN ALI HUSSAIN Vs. KAJI MUSTAFAMIYAN AJAMMIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees in Regular Civil Appeals Nos. 41 and 42 of 1960 decided by Mr. K. R. Marjadi learned Extra Assistant Judge Junagadh.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as under. Kaji Mustafamiya Ajammiya is the common plaintiff in both the suits. Civil Suit No. 182 of 1958 against Patni Ali Hussein of Patan and Patni Karim Hussein of Patan and Regular Civil Suit No. 183 of 1958 against Ghanchi Hasan Abhram of Patan wore filed by the plaintiff for recovering possession of agricultural lands more particularly mentioned in the plaint which had been allotted to him as Gharkhed lands under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff was the Barkhalidar and the defendants were his tenants With the enforcement of the provisions of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 the relationship of the Barkhalidar and the tenants which had been subsisting between the plaintiff on one hand and the defendants of the other hand came to on end. Out of the plaintiffs lands which the defendants had been holding as tenants the suit lands were allotted to the plaintiff as Gharkhed lands on 22nd March 1953. Thereafter for some time the defendants cultivated these lands but ultimately they refused to hand over possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore instituted proceedings before the Mamlatdar under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 but he failed to recover possession of the suit lands in a those proceedings. He also instituted proceedings before the Deputy Collector under sec. 38 of the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 in order to recover possession of the suit lands but he also failed in that attempt of his. Thereafter he instituted the present suits for recovery of possession of the suit lands form the defendants. The material allegation which the plaintiff made in the plaint was that after the allotment orders were made in his favour in respect of the suit lands under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 he had inducted the defendants on the lands as agricultural labourers for cultivating them for a period of two years. On the expiry of the said period they had refused to deliver possession of the lands to him. Therefore he filed the present suits.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suits on the ground that the plaintiff had created permanent leases in their favour and had leased out the lands to them. Therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to decrees for possession against them.