MUKHRAM AND ORS. Vs. PURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected second appeals arising out of two suits filed by the Plaintiff Appellants against the Defendants. Suit No. 537 of 1947 was for declaration that the Plaintiffs were owners of the crop which stood in the plots mentioned in the plaint and were entitled to get Rs. 1,000/ - deposited in the criminal Court Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure being the sale proceeds of the crop attached thereunder. Suit No. 673 of 1947 was for recovery of Rs. 1,500/ - as price of the crop wrongfully removed by the Defendants.

(2.) THE facts of the case according to the Plaintiffs are that the Defendants were the tenants of the plots and were ejected therefrom on 1 -6 46 Under Section 163 of the U.P. T. Act and the Zamindar, Sahu Bhagwati Prasad obtained possession of the holding on (sic) and gave it to the Plaintiffs on rent who executed two Qabuliats and obtained possession of the land from Sahu Bhagwati Pd. They sowed Kharif crop in the plots and appropriated it and thereafter they sowed Rabi crop in those plots. When the time for harvesting the Rabi crop came the Defendants instituted proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and got the crop attached. The crop was sold and the sale proceeds Rs. 1.000/ - were deposited in the court and in respect of that amount suit No. 53 of 1947 was instituted. The other suit No. 673, of 1947, was with respect to the Kharif crop of 1947, alleged to have been wrongfully cut and removed by the Defendants.

(3.) THE learned Munsif held that the suit for declaration alone was maintainable, that it was not bad for multifarious ness, that the Plaintiffs were not the owners of the crop in suit and that the crop belonged to the Defendants. He further held that the suit was vexatious and had been brought to harass the Defendants. He therefore, awarded Rs. 50/ - as special costs to the Defendants. Accordingly both the suits were dismissed. The Plaintiffs filed appeals. The question in both the appeals was whether the Plaintiffs were the owners of the crop in suit.