RAM DASS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff petitioner under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that Mohammad Hanif and Abdul Majid were two co- bhumidhars of the land in suit in equal shares. Mohammad Hanif sold his half share to the defendants opposite parties Mir Ahmad, Shaukat, Nizamuddin and Mohammad Ali. It appears that the other co- tenure-holder Abdul Majid executed an agreement to sell his half share of the property in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. Thereafter he did not execute the sale deed with the result that the plaintiff petitioner had to institute a suit for specific performance of the contract. Thai suit was finally decreed by the civil court and in pursuance of that decree on failure of Abdul Majid a sate deed was executed by the court on 25th September 1958. It is after the execution of this sale deed by the court that the present suit was instituted by Ram Das for partition of his half share.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties relevant issues were framed and the first two revenue courts decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that by virtue of the sale executed by the court in favour of the plaintiff petitioner he became a co-sharer to the extent of half and was entitled to the division claimed. The plea of the defendants that they had entered into possession by virtue of an agreement on the advancement of Rs. 100 was negatived The concurrent finding of the two first courts was that the defendants had entered into possession after the execution of the sale deed in respect of half of the property in their favour. The plea of limitation raised by the defendants was overruled on the ground that possession of one co-tenure-holder was possession of other, since ouster had not been proved the suit was well within time.