MOBIN KHAN Vs. CHUNNU KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions have been pressed on behalf of the counsel for the appellant in this second appeal. In the first place he has contended that the transferor of the appellant who was a sirdar of share of the land in dispute had deposited 10 times of the annual rent and had made an application for grant of bhumidhari sanad before executing a sale deed of his rights in the land in dispute in favour of the appellant and as such the appellant acquired rights of his transferor when the sanad was ultimately granted in favour of his transferor. He next contended that the respondents were barred by the principle of estoppel from denying the rights of the appellant which he had acquired under the sale deed executed in his favour by his transferor. In order to appreciate the validity of the submissions of the learned counsel it is necessary to state facts of the case.

(2.) One Habbu Khan had two sons named Munan Khan and Kifayat Khan Chunnu Khan and Nanhoo Khan plaintiff-respondents were the sons of Munan Khan. Kifayat Khan died leaving behind a son Nathu Khan who is transferor of the defendant-appellant. There is no controversy between the parties with regard to these facts. The suit giving rise to this second appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondents. They stated that Nathu Khan and the plaintiff-respondents were sirdars of the land in dispute in which the share of Nathu Khan was ?. They further disclosed that Nathu Khan died four months prior to the institution of the suit and the plaintiff-respondents were his sole heirs and sugarcane crop in an area of 9 bighas Kham had been sown by the plaintiff-respondents in a portion of the joint sirdari holding and they were in possession of the same. According to the plaintiff-respondents the defendant-appellant had no right, title or interest in the joint holding but they were threatening to cut away sugarcane crop standing on the land. They claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant-appellant from interfering with their possession over the land in dispute. They got the plaint amended and stated that after the filing of the suit the defendant-appellant had cut and removed the sugarcane crop which was of the value of Rs. 2,000/-. They prayed that decree for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as damages may be passed against the defendant-appellant on account of damages for wrongful misappropriation of the sugarcane crop.

(3.) Defendant-Appellant contested the suit. He stated that his mother was first married to one Yasin Khan and he was born from this union. He further stated that Yasin Khan died and his mother remarried Nathu Khan son of Kifayat Khan and he lived with Nathu Khan as his own son. According to him Nathu Khan had a 1/2 share in the land in dispute. He further stated that Nathu Khan deposited 10 times of the annual rent for acquisition of bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute on June 9, 1966 and on the same date Nathu Khan executed a sale deed of his right, title and interest as bhumidhar of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant-appellant. It was claimed by him that the sugarcane crop has been raised by him and had been rightly cut and removed by him. It was also averred that an order granting bhumidhari sanad was passed which would relate back to the date on which the 10 times of the rent had been deposited by Nathu Khan. He did not dispute that Nathu Khan died four months prior to the institution of the suit giving rise to this second appeal.