NANKU Vs. PATHAR DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Pathar Din respondent for possession of some tenancy land against the appellant. Pachai, grandfather of the respondent and father of Nanku, held an agricultural tenancy before the U.P. Tenancy Act was passed. He died long ago and after his death his son Mangal was granted a patta by the Nazul Department, the superior landlord, for the period 1335 to 1340 Fasli. On the expiry of this period, a fresh patta was executed in the name of Mangal for 1343 to 1352 Fasli. While this fresh patta was in force the U. P. Tenancy Act became law.

(2.) On the 26th January, Pathar Din instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises alleging that on the death of his father he succeeded as hereditary tenant of the plots in suit but that the defendant had taken unlawful possession of them in June 1935. He accordingly sued in the Court of the Munsif for possession of the plots.

(3.) The defendant alleged that he was a co-tenant of the plots in suit. His plea of tenancy seems to have been based upon the fact that formerly Pachai was a tenant. He further pleaded that since the plaintiff did not sue for recovery of possession within three years of the passing of the U. P. Tenancy Act, he had acquired hereditary rights under Section 180 of the Act.