MAHADEO MISIR Vs. PALAKDHARI MISIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal. It arises out of a suit for demolition of constructions made by the defendants and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs brought a suit for demolition and removal of the disputed constructions and for the issue of a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the right of plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of subplot No. 95. The plaintiffs" case was that sub-plot No. 95 was settled with plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 by the Zamindar in the year 1926 under a deed which is paper No. 70-A and is dated 20-11-1926. Under the said deed the plaintiff No. 1 was accorded permission by the Zamindar to fix cattle troughs or to prepare cow dung cakes or to construct cattle sheds or to instal chappars or to sink wells or to plant trees or to build a house on the said plot. He was also given a right to cultivate the same, but, if he did so, he was to pay Rs. 14/4/- per year as rent. He alleged that he got possession of the said land in accordance with the afore-mentioned deed, that he had been enjoying the said land since the year 1926 upto about two years prior to the suit i.e. up to about 1948. In the year 1948 the defendant started constructing three cattle troughs on the land in dispute, thereby interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful enjoyment of sub-plot No. 95. The plaintiffs, accordingly, filed the present suit in the year 1948 for the demolition of the cattle troughs and for a permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the disputed constructions were not made on sub-plot No. 95, that the land in dispute was settled with them by the Zamindars and that, in any case, the; plaintiffs' suit was barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The trial Court found that permission had been given by the Zamindar as alleged :by the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs had got possession of the said land, that the plaintiffs had been enjoying the said land and had been in possession thereof up to year 1948 and that the defendants interfered with the plaintiffs' possession by constructing three cattle troughs over the land. On the above findings the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit in respect of the disputed land.

(3.) Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendants filed an appeal. In appeal it was not argued on behalf of the defendants that the findings of the trial Court were wrong. It may, therefore, be taken that it was conceded on behalf of the defendants that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on facts were correct. The sole point that was argued before the lower appellate Court was a legal one, namely that the plaintiffs being licencees had no right to sue. The lower Court held that paper No. 70-A dated 20-11-1926 being and unregistered document could not be given effect to as such. The lower appellate Court, therefore, accepted the defendant's contention that the plaintiffs were bare licensees, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that it was not maintainable.