GAJADHAR SAHU Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original Respondent No. 3 Smt. Suraj Pali brought a suit under Section 180 U.P. Tenancy Act for the eviction of the Petitioner from the disputed plots. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal was decreed by the Addl. Commr. The decree of the Addl. Commr. was upheld in second appeal by the Board of Revenue. By this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the decrees of the Board of Revenue and the Addl. Commr.

(2.) It was admitted by the parties before the Addl. Commr. that Smt. Suraj Pali, Vishwanath and Badri were the joint proprietors and joint sirholders of the disputed plots. Vishwanath and Badri sold their share of the proprietary interest to certain persons. Thereupon Smt. Suraj Pali and the Petitioner Gajadhar Sahu filed a suit for preemption which was decreed. They obtained proprietary possession over the share to Vishwanath and Badri. It appears that the Petitioner started cultivating the disputed plots and claimed to have become khudkasht-holder thereof. This led to the filing of the suit by Smt. Suraj Pali. The Addl. Commr. has held that at the time when Vishwanath and Badri sold their share they did not claim any ex-proprietary tenancy rights in the joint sir and accordingly Smt Suraj Pali became the sole sir-holder of the entire plots as there had been no demarcation of the Sir between the original sir-holders. The Petitioner, by virtue of the decree for pre-emption, did not acquire any rights to cultivate sir la id and was a mere trespasser thereon. In this view the Addl. Commr. decreed the suit filed by Smt. Suraj Pali. The Board of Revenue has affirmed this decree though on a slightly different ground.

(3.) The first contention raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the mere fact that the vendors Vishwanath and Badri did not claim ex-proprietary tenancy rights did not mean that they did not become ex-proprietary tenants. He contends that under the law the vendors automatically became ex-proprietary tenants of the joint sir. The finding of the Addl. Commr. that the vendors did not become exproprietary tenants was not challenged before the Board. But apart from this, even if the vendors Vishwanath and Badri became ex-properietary tenants that position does not help the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not claim through the ex-proprietary tenants nor does he claim through Smt. Suraj Pali, the sirholder. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show me how he could legally enter into actual cultivatory possession of the plots. Even on the Petitioner's case that the vendors had become ex-proprietary tenants the Petitioners position does not improve and he cannot but be treated as a trespasser. That being the position he was liable to be ejected in a suit under Section 180 U.P. Tenancy Act.