LAWS(ALL)-1950-5-6

SHANKHTA SHUKUL Vs. SM GOVINDI DEVI

Decided On May 03, 1950
SHANKHTA SHUKUL Appellant
V/S
SM. GOVINDI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are set out in the order of remand, dated 27th October 1949, by which certain issues were remitted to the trial Court for findings. On the first five issues remitted, the trial Court has returned the following findings :

(2.) No objection has been raised by either party to these findings and they are accepted as correct. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has conceded that as the plots in dispute other than plot No. 691/1 were recorded in the agricultural year immediately preceding the agricultural year, in which Act III [3] of 1926 came into force as being cultivated by the plaintiff as her khudkasht they will be presumed to be a part of her sir land; but he has contended that the presumption is a rebuttable presumption and it has been rebutted by the evidence on the record. He has argued that Badri having executed a dastbardari in respect of 8 plots and the surrender being in favour of one of the co-sharers, it would enure for the benefit of the entire body of co-sharers, including the appellant. The dastbardari was, however, executed in the year 1910 while the finding is that in the year 1925 the plots other than plot No. 691/1 were being cultivated by the plaintiff-respondent and were recorded as her khudkasht. There was a long interval between 1910 and 1925, and during that interval anything might have happened.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that it has been found by the trial Court that the mortgagees from Badri and Raghubar had obtained possession over the mortgaged property which included three of the plots in dispute and which the appellant had redeemed. The trial Court has, no doubt, found that the mortgagees did not obtain actual cultivatory possession, but it also found that they were realising rent from the ex-proprietary tenants. The redemption appears to have taken place a year or two before 1925; consequently, this fact also has no bearing on the question under consideration.