MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. AMAR NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Mohd. Yasin, respondent, to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition of Amar Nath and thereby dismissing the suit which had been instituted by Mohd. Yasin before the revenue courts. The learned Single Judge not only quashed the orders of the Board of Revenue and of the Additional Commissioner, but restored with costs throughout the decree of the trial court.

(2.) It is rather unfortunate that the parties came to the courts of law with incorrect allegations of fact. For the disposal of the special appeal such wrong statements can be overlooked. The material facts of the case are that on 30-5-1966 Mohd. Yasin, a tenant of the holding situate in Roorkee town, executed a lease in favour of Nattha Singh for a period of five years. Amar Nath is the sister's son of Nattha Singh. Nattha Singh left Roorkee and died in Ludhiana sometime in 1959. Prior to his leaving Roorkee he executed a sub-lease in favour of Amar Nath sometimes in 1968. On 27-11-1958 Amar Nath purchased the land from the then zamindar. Zamindari in Roorkee town was abolished from 1-7-1961. It was, on 27-2-1966, that Mohd. Yasin instituted the present suit under Sec. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of Amar Nath. In the plaint it was mentioned that Mohd. Yasin had come to know of the death of Nattha Singh 4 or 5 years back. Considering that Mohd. Yasin took up wrong pleas and has not come with clean slate we can assume that death of Nattha Singh had come to the knowledge of Mohd. Yasin in or about Feb., 1961, a few months before the abolition of the zamindari, which is termed as the date of vesting.

(3.) Amar Nath was not one of the statutory heirs of Nattha Singh, and, therefore, from the date of knowledged at least the possession of Amar Nath became as a trespasser and not on behalf of the sub-tenant, Nattha Singh. In other words, the limitation for a suit for ejectment commenced from before the date of vesting and the limitation had not expired by that date.