RAGHAVENDRA Vs. MOTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the first defendant from a decree of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the use and possession of the land in suit by the plaintiff as a permanent lessee thereof. The two plots of land Nos. 3 and 4 were granted on Parjawat tenure to Bankim Chandra Ghosh and Nagendra Nath Paul under two separate registered deeds dated the 19th July, 1934 and 17th August, 1934 respectively, by one Krishna Mohan Shah. The plaintiff claims to be a transferee of the Parjawat rights in the two plots of land from the heirs of Bankim Chandra Ghosh and Naxendra Nath Paul under two separate deeds of sale dated the 14th July, 1958. The plaintiff has described the instruments dated the 19th July, 1934 and 17th August, 1934 executed by Krishna Mohan Shah in favour of Bankim Chandra Ghosh and Narendra Nath Paul as permanent leases, and the status acquired by them thereunder to be that of a permanent lessee. The defendants nos. 1 and 3 were brothers and the second defendant is the first defendant's wife. The defendants nos. 1 and 3 had filed separate written statement, but only defendant No. 1 appears to have contested the suit. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants had unlawfully obstructed him in raising construction on the land after he had purchased the same in July, 1958, the date of the accrual of the cause of action given by the plaintiff being the 4th December, 1958 and the suit having been filed on the 6th December, 1958. The defence was that the leases were invalid, inasmuch as Krishna Mohan Shah all alone had no right to execute the leases, and that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest before him never had any possession over the land. 3. It appears that the plaintiff had, on an application made on the 13th January, 1960 amended the plaint by claiming in the alternative the relief of possession if he was found to be out of possession. 4. The following were the issues on which the parties went to trial. "1. Whether plaintiff is the permanent lessee of the plots in suit?"

(2.) TO what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?