RUKMIN Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal in a suit under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. It appears that one smt. Radha was the tenant of the khata in dispute in this case. She died in November 1943 and disputes arose over her tenancy rights. The defendants entered into Possession of the khata and the plaintiff Mulhay then instituted the suit which has given rise to the present, appeal for possession of the khata on the allegation that he was the own brother of Smt. Radha and as such succeeded to the tenancy rights of Smt. Radha. A claim for damages was also made along with the claim for possession. The plaintiff had mentioned in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 were in possession of the khata on behalf of the zamindars who were defendants 4 to 6.

(2.) THE suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff was not the brother of Smt. Radha and as such was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of Smt. Radha. It was also pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court.

(3.) THE lower Court found that Mulhay was the own brother of Smt. Radha and as Smt. Radha was the original tenant her tenancy would pass to her brother. It also found that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court. The trial Court ultimately decreed the claim. Mathura defendant then went in appeal to the District Judge who upheld the decision of the trial Court. Mathura defendant has now come up in second appeal.