SIA RAM Vs. RADHEY SHIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession over the grove in suit for an injunction and for recovery of Rs. 600 as damages. The plaintiff's allegations were that he was the owner of the grove No. 398 in village Faridpur, that the defendant had been working as his 'karinda' when he had forged a few bonds and pronotes and also a sale deed in respect of the grove in dispute. He had obtained registration of the sale-deed by means of a suit and he had taken forcible possession of the grove and had misappropriated the timber of the trees in that grove, that the sale-deed was without consideration and is liable to be cancelled. The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed against the judgment was also dismissed. The finding of the Court below is that although the plaintiff executed the sale-deed it was definitely proved that the sale-deed was without consideration.

(2.) The defendant preferred this appeal and the case came up before me on 4-5-1955. On that date it being admitted that the grove was protected land to which the provisions of the U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, 1940 (hereafter to be referred to as the Act) applied, I sent down an issue as to whether the permission 'granted by Sri Jagat Narain, Revenue Officer to sell the grove was a valid permission under Section 24, U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (Act 14 of 1940) for decision. The finding has been returned that the permission Ex. 4 granted by Sri Jagat Narain under Section 24 of Act 14 of 1940 was not a valid permission. The learned counsel for the appellant did not file any objection to this finding in time but he did file one later and he wanted to show that Sri Jagat Narain was an Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division within which this protected land lay. But he has not been able to satisfy me in this respect. Ultimately he had to admit that the finding returned by the learned Civil Judge cannot be attacked.

(3.) This being protected land and a permanent alienation thereof having been made otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act by virtue of Section 25 (1) of that Act, the alienation could take effect only as a mortgage in the form prescribed by Clause (a) to Sub-clause (1), of Section 13 of the said Act.