V E ARGLES Vs. CHHAIL BEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, arising out of proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The dispute is about the property known as Natwar Estate in the district of Gorakhpur which consists of zamindari and markets. It appears from the application, dated 7th May 1948, made to the learned Sessions Judge that eleven villages are involved in this case. This estate originally belonged to one Mr. Argles, who died about 18 years ago leaving the applicant Mrs. Argles as the widow. He had made a will before his death. It is alleged that, according to it, Mrs. Argles was given a. life estate in the property with no powers of alienation and lease. Upon the death of the latter the property was to come absolutely to Mr. Argles daughter.

(2.) On 18th August 1943, Mrs. Argles and her daughter executed a registered deed of lease in favour of Chhail Behari, the oppoiste party before us, for a period of seven years. It is common ground of the parties that up to the last week of March 1946 the lessee was in peaceful possession of the property and no dispute arose between the lessors and the lessee It is alleged by Mrs. Argles that in the last week of March 1946 the lessee voluntarily abandoned the possession of the leased property and she peacefully entered in possession of it. About two months later, however, according to Mrs. Argles, dispute arose between her and the lessee and the lessee began to assert his possession over the property. Hence, on 35th May 1946, Mrs. Argles brought a suit in the civil Court for a declaration that she was in actual possession of the property. The plaint was held to be deficiently stamped and the Civil Judge asked Mrs. Argles to make good the deficiency in court-fee. Against that order Mrs. Argles has preferred an appeal to this Court. It is still pending. Thus the civil suit has not been decided so far.

(3.) About two weeks subsequent to the institution of the civil suit by Mrs. Argles, the lessee brought a suit under Section 217, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, in the revenue Court for an injunction to restrain the lessor , Mrs. Argles, from interfering, with his possession. It is necessary to Bet out here the provisions of that section. It provides: A thekadar who has been wrongfully ejected from the whole or any part of the theka area, or wrongfully prevented from exercising any of his rights as thekadar by the lessor or any person claiming under or as agent of the lessor may sue for any or. all of the following remedies: