SMT. KAILASHI Vs. GHAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is carried by Smt. Kailashi and Smt. Kaushalya against the order of dismissal of first appeal dated 2-9-1988 directed against the order of trial Court dated 30-10-1965 an order dismissing the suit of Panne Lal under Sec. 209, Z. A. ana L.R. Act.

(2.) The facts as per exposition in the pleadings are: On 10-12-1963 Panne Lal institutes a lawsuit under Sec. 209, Z. A. and L. R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Sadar, Partapgarh. The land is situate in Qasba Pratapgarh and provisions of Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1951 are applicable thereto. It is alleged his father Nohar was a hereditary tenant in possession of suit land. On his death he has inherited the tenancy and in consequence of abolition Nohar had become a sirdar tenant. He is continuing in possession since then. The defendants Gazi, Jodha and Algu have forcibly inducted themselves over the land in July 1962 taking advantage of his pitiable status as a minor. The possession taken forcibly gives riser, a cause of action for their ejectment. The land is inside Town Area, Pratapgarh but no Land Management Committee is constituted to administer the property. If defendant have got their names entered in any capacity whatsoever the same is result of skillful dissemblance and fraud. The relief of restoration of possession by ejectment of defendants is prayed for.

(3.) The claim evokes a sharp rebuttal in a written statement by defendant Gazi and others on 23-3-1964. The assertion is that plaintiff is not sole tenant nor sirdar tenant of suit land. Nor his father was sole tenant in possession. A pedigree has been given to explain devolution of interest from common ancestor. The ancestors of the parties belonged to joint Hindu family of Mitakshara school Varanasi and this status had continued till lately. Bisheshwar was Karta of joint Hindu family. The land belonged to ancestor of plaintiff and defendants and to Bechai; this has trailed down in that form to their descendants. That land was acquired from Zamindars for the benefit of entire family. The defendants have title and interest as co-tenants; their share is 1/3 in joint holding. In consequence of abolition they along with Bechai are sirdar tenants in possession. The joint Hindu family status has lately been dissolved. The land in suit has come in their share in division of household estate. They are in exclusive possession. In addition by adverse possession they have perfected title under Sec. 180 (2) U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. They are now sirdar tenants in possession. The suit is bad for-non-joinder of necessary parties. The relief to dismiss the suit is prayed for.