RAM CHARITTER Vs. TULSHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Ram Charittar against the order of the District Judge of Jaunpur dismissing his appeal and thereby maintaining the order of the Civil Judge dismissing the objection of the applicant against the award and making the award of the arbitrator a rule of the court.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the opposite parties has raised an objection to the maintainability of the revision on the ground that one of the Respondents has not been impleaded in the revision as an opposite party. What is contended is that the order of the lower appellate court has become final as far as Smt. Subai is concerned and in the circumstances, the order be not interfered with as far as the others are affected. This contention would have had great force and could be a good ground for the non exercise of revisional jurisdiction had Smt. Subai been a necessary party and had an interest in the plots in dispute. Her name was added as one of the legal representatives of Mangal deceased. Mangal claimed to be a co -adhivasi, later a co sirdar; and in the end a co -bhumidhar of the disputed plots. It is apparent from Section 171 of the UP ZA and LR. Act that the heirs of Mangal were his sons and not his widow. Smt. Subai was thus not an heir of Mangal and hence was not a necessary or proper party to the proceeding. Her non -impleadment in the revision cannot thus go against the applicant.

(3.) SECTION 18 of the UP ZA and LR Act lays down who shall acquire the status of a bhumidhar. Sub -section (2) thereof applies to persons who have obtained a declaration under the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949. The opposite parties could thus become bhumidhars on payment of 10 times rent if they were tenants or sub -tenants of the classes mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) and (f) of Sub -Section 1 of Section 3 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act. They could also become bhumidhars in case they were occupiers as defined in Explanation II thereof. In other words the opposite parties could acquire the status of bhumidhars only if the land was not included in the holding of a tenant. Algu was originally recorded as occupancy tenant of the land. In case Meghoo, father of Ram Charitter, applicant, was the son of Algu, the land would be in the holding of an occupancy tenant and the opposite parties could riot within the meaning of Section 3 of the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act be occupiers. Bat if Meghoo was not the son of Algu the latter shall be assumed to have died issueless and there would be no tenant of the plot and in such a case the opposite parties could acquire the status of bhumidhars.