SHEO NATH Vs. JADUBIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over plot No. 86/1. The Plaintiff added the relief of possession after removal of constructions by amendment of the plaint on the Allegation that after the institution of the suit the Defendants had put up certain constructions on the land.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's case was that he was bhumidhar of the land which was sold to him by two brothers Ajit Kumar and Ranjit Kumar under a sale deed dated 16.11.1957. Originally one Up -endranath Basu was thekadar of certain lands including the plot in suit. On 15.7.1917 he executed a registered lease in favour of his brother Shivendra Nath Basu. It was provided in the lease that the lessee will have the same rights in and over the land as the lesser had; the lessee was given the right to put up a factory and make other constructions on the land which was lying, party. In 1950 Shivendra Nath Basu applied for and obtained bhumidhari rights under Section 6 of the UP Agricultural Tenants 'Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 by depositing ten times the rent. Ajit Kumar and Ranjit Kumar and sons of Shivendra Nath Basu who inherited the property from their father and sold the plot in suit to the Plaintiff.

(3.) THE Munsif dismissed the suit and held that the lease of 1917 was a fictitious document, that the plot in suit was recorded as parti kadim in 1307 F. as well as in Khartoum of 1366 F. and that there was no evidence that it was ever cultivated by the Plaintiff or his predecessors in title. He held that the declaration granted under Section 6 of Act X of 1949 to the lessee was of no legal effect.