ZAMIT KUNWAR Vs. NARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against a judgment of Bhutt J. in Second Appeal No. 598 of 1053, dated 7th January 1954. By his judgment the learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the lower appellate Court which had affirmed the decision of the trial Court:

(2.) THE short question in this case is the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 3950 (No. I of 1951) to the facts of this case. The appellant claims that the suit was not rendered incompetent by the operation of the said Act, while the respondents contend that it was so.

(3.) IN the plaint the plaintiff had claimed only the site and not the house. When the M.P Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act was passed during the pendency of this suit two amendments were effected in the plaint, but the prayer still remained that the plaintiff should be placed in possession of the site after ordering the defendants to remove the superstructure. This appears somewhat surprising in view of the fact that the plaintiff claimed that the house was constructed by her and given to Lalaram only for residence. We, however, do not say anything more about it because the finding is that the house was in fact constructed by the Zamindarin, the plaintiff,