SHEO BEHARI SINGH Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the appellate decree of Sri Abul Qasim Zaidi, Civil Judge, Sitapur, dated 5-2-1945.

(2.) Plaintiff Hanwant Singh, who died during the pendency of the present appeal and is now represented by his son Sheo Behari Singh and his grandson Maheshwar Bus Singh was a cosharer in patti No. 2 in village Kathwa. In that Patti lies grove plot No. 67. Ram Ghulam, maternal grand-father of Raja Ram respondent, was its grove-holder. According to the plaintiff Ram Ghulam died in 1934 and was succeeded by the defendant respondent, who used to live with him. The plaintiff's case was that in 1937 or so Raja Ram abandoned the grove and went away to live in village Shivpuri, a village not owned by the zamindars of the grove and that according to the village custom the grove thus escheated to the zamindars. The plaintiff claimed in these circumstances to recover possession from Raja Ram, whom he alleged to be a trespasser. 2a. The defence was that Raja Ram inherited the grove from his maternal grand father on his death in 1930, that he never lived with his maternal grand-father and the cause of action, if any, arose in 1930 and as the suit was filed in 1944 it was time barred. The custom pleaded by the plaintiff was denied and it was stated that even if such a custom did exist it ceased to be effective in view of the provisions of Section 206 (a), U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939.

(3.) The trial Court hold that Ram Ghulam. died in 1930 and Raja Ram defendant inherited the grove from him, that Raja Ram never lived with his maternal grand-father and the suit was barred by time. It held that the custom of escheat pleaded by the plaintiff was proved, but it had no effect in view of the provisions of Section 206 (a), Tenancy Act of 1939. In the result the suit was dismissed.