RAM NITHORE Vs. NEURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that he is the tenant of the plots in suit and in possession and defendant no. 1 has no concern with the suit land. THEre is an alternative prayer that if found out of possession, possession be also given to the plaintiff, it is not in dispute that one Naseeb Kahar was the tenant of the plots involved and Neuri, defendant No. 1, was his wife. It is also established that Mulka was the mother of Naseeb. THE plaintiff's basic stand as per his case in the lower court is that Smt. Neuri remarried one person at Chauri and Smt. Mulka remained in possession of the disputed plots and she transferred her interest in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of a gift-deed.

(3.) TO have a clear approach I may mention that the plaintiff does not claim to have obtained any lease of the holdings. As regards plaintiff's case of gift-deed from Mulka, it is noteworthy that the gift-deed in writing of Mulka in plaintiff's favour, which was filed, was confined to the house and there is no mention of any tenancy holdings. The stand taken is that the plaintiff has by virtue of his continuous possession acquired hereditary rights in the holding. Sections 18 and 159 of the Benaras State Tenancy Act, by which the parties are governed, are relevant. Section 18 lays down different categories of hereditary tenants. Clause (a) provides that the individual concerned was a tenant of the land on the date of the commencement of the Act and not covered under the exceptions. The plaintiff appellant was not a tenant of the suit plots at the commencement of this Act, nor it is urged. Clause (b) provides for those who are admitted as tenant after the commencement of the Act. The plaintiff does not claim that he was so admitted as a tenant by this person in law authorised to admit him as a tenant. Clause (c) provides for those who in accordance with the provisions of this Act acquired hereditary rights. In Section 159 (2) a provision has been made for those who remain in possession and are not ejected within the prescribed period of limitation. It is not in dispute that such limitation period is three years. The courts below have made a right legal approach to scrutinise whether the plaintiff has been in continuous possession for three years as to become hereditary tenant under the aforesaid provision and have recorded a finding against the plaintiff.