LAL MOHAMMED Vs. MOHAMMED OMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The only argument advanced in this appeal, filed with the leave of our learned brother Mr. Justice Ansari, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is that on the assumption that the title inhered in the plaintiff and the sale-deeds were not in fact executed by the plaintiff, the defendant (appellant) is entitled to tenancy rights by reason of section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate this contention, it is useful to look at the terms of section 5 of that Act, which reads : " A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the landholder and if such person is not-

(3.) In considering whether this section applies to this case or not, we have to bear in mind the broad features of this case. The plaintiff, who is a nephew of the defendant (who are the respondent and the appellant respectively) averred in the plaint that in or about 1940, the suit lands and the house were given to his uncle, the defendant, on an undertaking that he should return them whenever he demanded ; that he called upon him to give back the lands and house to him in January, 1950 and the defendant, instead of complying with this demand, set up title in himself by putting forward two unregistered sale deeds, in his reply notice. Having regard to this attitude of the defendant the plaintiff had to file the suit for recovering possession of the properties.