MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. HUKUM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over three plots of land in the village. The plaintiff alleged that he was the sirdar of the plots but the defendants had threatened to take forcible possession of them and cutting his crops; hence the suit.

(2.) The defendants alleged that the plaintiff was not the sirdar of the plots and denied that he was the son of Angad who was admittedly the sirdar of the land. The first and second defendants claim to be sirdars of one plot and the third defenant of the remaining two plots. Both the Courts below disbelieved the defendants' story completely and held that the plaintiff is the son of Angad who was a tenant of the plots and was now the sirdar. The defendants' testimony that they were in possession of the plots was also disbelieved and the Courts have held the plaintiff in possession throughout. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged only one point in support of this appeal. He contended that the question whether the plaintiff was a sirdar should have been referred by the learned Munsif to the revenue Court under Section 332-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is conceded that this point was not raised either before the trial Court or the Additional Civil Judge in appeal and has been taken up for the first time In second appeal. The question is whether I should permit the appellant's learned counsel to raise it now. Learned counsel submits that I have no discretion in this matter and am bound to hear the appellants on this point which raises a question of law.