RAJENDRA SAHAI Vs. DILDAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1968 passed by the Civil Judge Etah in Revenue Appeal No. 1 of 1967.

(2.) The appellant is son of Smt. Raj-wati Devi. Respondents 9 to 11 are the heirs of Lachhman Prasad (sic) Respondents 9 to 11 are the heirs of Dharmendra Nath. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Rajwati Kuer against Dharmendra Nath and Dildar respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to plot No. 2366 measuring 2. Bighas 3 Biswas. There is grove in this plot. The grove in this plot was actually purchased by Smt. Rajwati Kuer through Lachhman Prasad. Therefore, in the revenue records the names of Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Rajwati Kuer both were recorded. Correctly speaking Lachhman Prasad was just an ostensible purchaser. This fact is evident from the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 21-10-1962 in case No. 2736 under Sec. 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) It is undisputed that Smt. Rajwati Kuer was the grove holder and on coming into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter called the Act she became bhumidhar. It is further undisputed that Dildar respondent and Dharmendra Nath became Asamis of the plot after the coming into force of the Act. In Khasra 1358 Fasli corresponding to July 1950 - June 1951 Dharmendra Nath and Dildar were recorded as subtenant at the total rental of Rs. 53.00. The period of tenancy is mentioned as one year. In June 1951 Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Rajwati Kuer filed suits against Dildar and Dharmendra Nath under Sec. 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. that they had taken forcible possession of the plot towards the end of July 1950. The suits were contested mainly on the ground that they were tenants on their behalf at a rental of Rs. 53.00 per annum. By order dated 30th July 1954 the plaints were ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court. On 4-7-1956 the present suit was filed with the allegations that towards the end of July, 1950 Dharmendra Nath and Dildar had taken illegal possession of the plot without the consent of Smt. Rajwati Kuer and Lachhman Prasad. In this plaint they clearly admitted that Dharmendra Nath and Dildar had become Asamis. Then they alleged that the cause of action arose in July 1952. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time. The revenue court held that the suit was not barred by time. But this finding has been reversed by the Civil Judge, who has clearly held that the suit was barred by time. Consequently the suit has been dismissed.