(1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for possession and damages. The plaintiff alleged that the plots in dispute were khudkasht of the plaintiff of which he became a bhumidhar on the date of vesting. The defendants were said to have entered into wrongful possession in 1357F. It was also alleged that the entries in Khasra of 1356F. were wrong and consequently the plaintiff claimed possession as well as damages. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were recorded occupants in 1356F. and had become adhivasis and thereafter sirdars.
(2.) The issue about the defendants' adhivasi rights was referred to the revenue court. The revenue court came to the conclusion that the defendants were adhivasis. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession but decreed it for damages. The parties went in appeal against that judgment and the lower appellate court has maintained the trial court's decree dismissing the suit for possession while that court enhanced the damages to Rs. 300. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal.
(3.) Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned advocate for the appellant, has contended that the courts below have erred in holding that the defendants were adhivasis because the entries have not been made in accordance with Secs. 28 and 33 of the Land Revenue Act and in any case the defendants being recorded as occupants over one plot in Rabi crop and over the other in Kharif crop could not become adhivasis-sirdars. His contention is that under Sec. 20(b) it is necessary that a person should be recorded as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356F. and since the entries relate to only a part of the year the defendants are not recorded occupants. Sri B. C. Saxena, learned advocate for the respondents, has contended that Sec. 20(b) does not speak of the whole year and it only speaks of a person being a recorded occupant; it may be for the whole year or a part thereof, and so he would become an adhivasi.