KUNNABAI WD O GANESHLAL DELETED Vs. ASHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R. C. A. No. 33/66 passed by the District Judge, Buldana on 31-1-1981, wherein the said District Judge confirmed the decree of dismissal of the Suit No. 262/64 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. , Mankar dated 12-10-1965. The present appellants are original plaintiffs.

(2.) THE facts of this appeal are as under :--The suit properties involved in this suit are the properties of Jahagirdar, viz. Nurul Jiyauddin son of Nurul Attkiya. The said Jahagirdar had executed lease of the suit land in favour of three persons viz. , Sakharam, Ganeshlal and Motilal permanently under the registered deed of lease dated 28-6-1945. The defendants were recorded annual tenants of the suit land in the Record of Right. Therefore, Sakharam and others including Jahagirdar served a notice to quit under section 74 (2) of the Berar land Revenue Code and then filed a suit bearing No. 94-A/47 against the defendants for possession of the suit land. This suit came to be dismissed. As the plaintiffs father and other co-lessees were specified tenants in lawful possession of the suit, the Deputy Commissioner of Buldana by his order dated 30-6-55 passed in Rev. Case No. 2/52 (1)/1954-55 declared plaintiffs father and other co-lessees as occupants of the suit land as per Exhibit No. 33 under the provisions of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights, Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) on payment of requisite amount of land revenue. The said order conferring occupancy rights on plaintiffs father and other co-lessees was final and binding on defendants. Afterwards on 20-12-54 a partition took place between plaintiff and other co-lesses in which the suit land was allotted to the share of plaintiffs share. Thus, the defendants had no right whatsoever in the suit land. Even then the defendants denied the rights of the plaintiff and obstructed the possession of the plaintiff over suit land. Thus, the plaintiff made application before Tahsildar but the Tahsildar did not decide the rights and hence the suit was filed for possession.

(3.) THUS, it will be clear that in this appeal, the plaintiffs are permanent lessees to whom after abolition of Jahagirs, lands have been granted as per the provisions of the Act of 1950. It will be further clear that the defendants in that suit were and are the annual tenants against whom on the basis of deed of 28-6-45, suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1947 after issuing notice to quit under section 74 (2) of the Berar Land Revenue Code, wherein decree for possession has been refused in 1950-51. All these facts, even though disputed by the defendants have been proved by the documents on record. The defendants are claiming the property as owner and according to them, they are owners by virtue of adverse possession. Present Suit No. 267/82 filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mehkar on 12-10-65 and the Civil Appeal No. 83/66 filed against the judgment was also dismissed by District Judge, Buldana on 31-1-1981 and thus, the present second appeal is by the plaintiffs, who were plaintiffs in Regular C. S. No. 262/82.