PERSHADI Vs. KUNWAR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Second Appeal learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Lala Nanak Chand v. The hoard of Revenue, U. P. (I) in support of this contention that merely an entry of a person's name as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauui of 1356F is enough to give the person a right of an Adhivasi within the meaning of that term under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and it has been urged that since the plaintiff's name was recorded as an occupant with respect to half share in the plots in suit during the year 1356F the plaintiff must be deemed to be an Adhivasi and the court below went wrong on that point. The decision in the case of Lala Nanak Chand v. The Board of Revenue U. P., (I) was passed upon the peculiar facts of that particular case and it can not be construed as laying down the law in a general fashion that in all cases inclusive of cases where the facts may be somewhat different an entry of a person's name as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356F should irrespective of the fact as to how that entry came about to be the determining factor in coming to the conclusion that a person so recorded as an occupant will be the Adhivasi.

(2.) IN the present case it has been found as a fact that the plaintiff's name came to be recorded jointly with the defendant by an order of the Assistant Collector passed on the 18th of August, 1944 by which he held the plaintiff to be a co -tenant. Under that order the name of the plaintiff was brought into existence on the record. That order was the subject of appeal before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue finally dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the 17th May, 1948 with the result that the erro(sic)eous entry made in the revenue records in pursuance of the order of the Assistant Collector was corrected by the Sub -Divisional officer of Koil by his order of the 26th of February, 1953. In these circumstances it cannot be said that such an entry brought about in the papers in the year 1356F would have the effect of conferring upon the plaintiff the right of an occupant of the plots. The true import of the decision in Lala Nanak Chand's case has really been missed by the learned counsel for the appellants when he has made his submissions upon the peculiar facts of the present case.

(3.) LEAVE to appeal is refused