BASHIR MOHAMMAD Vs. HASAN BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 765/- as price of the fruits of the grover for the three years from 1965 to 1967 at the rate of Rs. 255/- per annum.

(2.) The Plaintiffs case was that the grove detailed at the foot of the plaint situated within the municipal limits of Amroha, belonged to their predecessor Abdul Gafoor. Abdul Gafoor sold the Bagh Bahar of the grove to the Defendant on 26-2-1947 for a sum of Rs. 250/- per annum and for twenty shares of fruits. The Defendant executed Qabuliat for a period of three years. The Plaintiffs alleged that as the price of the Bagh Bahar had not been paid, Abdul Gafoor filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 510/-. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but the appeal filed by Abdul Gafoor was allowed. Abdul Gafoor died during the pendency of the appeal and the Plaintiffs were brought on record as his heirs. In that case, the Defendant claimed himself to be hereditary tenant. The Civil Judge, deciding the appeal, negatived the claim of the Defendant to be the hereditary tenant of the land on 16-5-1953 (Ex.1). This judgment was taken in appeal to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 21-7-64. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment of the Defendant in the revenue court under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in April 1967. Before the suit could be decided, the Plaintiffs filed the suit giving rise to the present second appeal for recovery of Rs. 765/- as price and also for injunction restraining the Defendant from damaging the trees.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Defendant inter alia on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Defendant further asserted that he was a hereditary tenant and as such, had acquired rights over the disputed land. The plea that he had been in adverse possession over the grove and the title of the Plaintiffs had extinguished, was also set up.