RASOOL UDDIN Vs. UDHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal in short are that the Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants in the court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Vidisha, on the allegations that their mother during their minority gave the disputed fields to the Defendants on 'Batai' for three years. This agreement was reduced to writing in the form of Patta and Kabuliyat. The Plaintiff had got the land ploughed with a tractor and the terms of the Batai were that from the produce after deducting the expenses, the profit shall be distributed fifty-fifty between the parties. It was said in the paint that the Defendants with the collusion of the Patwari got their names entered as Pukka-Krishaks. The Defendants admitted that they were "Bataidars" but claimed that they became Pakka Krishaks on the abolition of the Zamindari. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial Court found that the Defendants were Bataidars (and not tenants) and as such they could not acquire the status of a Pakka Krishak. It decreed the Plaintiff's suit.

(2.) On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Vidisha reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that the Defendants were tenants and have been rightly recorded as Pakka Krishaks. This is Plaintiff's second appeal.

(3.) After going through the record and the judgment of the learned first appellate Court, I find that a lot of confusion prevails in this case. Much of the judgment proceeds on grounds that need not have been considered. The learned Additional District Judge has taken the trouble to find out whether the land in dispute was Khudkasht or not. But he overlooked the simple fact that in the Patta and Kabuliyat, which are the basis of the suit; the land has been admitted by the Defendants to be Khudkasht. Thus the energy of the learned District Judge in trying to record a finding on the point was merely Wasted.