SAVITRIBAI PRABHULAL Vs. NEMEEGHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff whose claim for possession of certain agricultural lands has been dismissed except for one Khasra No. 8/2 which has, however, been decreed in her favour against the defendant-respondents by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE trial Court, however, decreed the claim of the plaintiff for the following five Khasra numbers out of nine Khasra numbers as claimed in the plaint, viz. , Khasra Nos. 8/1, 8/2, 6/2, 9/2 and 15/2. The trial Court decreed the claim for possession of the aforesaid five Khasra numbers by holding that those Khasra numbers were the Khudkasht land of the husband of the plaintiff, who was, admittedly, the Zamindar of the village and, on his death, the plaintiff held the same as a pucca tenant and the defendants had no right, title or interest on the same by virtue of the Patta which they claimed to have got from the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. The Courts below have found that the Patta issued by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit lands was absolutely unauthorised and illegal and, as such, was not binding on the plaintiff. It was also found as a fact that the defendants did not bring the lands under cultivation in pursuance of the said Patta before the abolition of Zamindari. This position was not disputed even before the lower appellate Court and the defendants ultimately conceded that they did not get any right, title or interest by virtue of the said Patta issued by the mother-in-law of the plaintiff and the same was not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants, however, contended that since the suit-lands were not recorded as Khudkasht before the date of abolition of Zamindari, i. e. 2-10-1951, the plaintiff had no locus standi to claim possession of the same because the lands in question had vested in the State and the State alone could evict them. This argument found favour with the lower appellate Court and on finding that since only one Khasra No. 8 j2 was recorded as Khudkasht in the Khasra papers for the samvat year 2007, which according to the lower appellate Court, was the khasra of the relevant year for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, the plaintiff could get possession of the said Khasra No. 8 j2 alone from the defendants and was not entitled to a decree for possession of the remaining Khasra numbers despite the fact that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the same.

(3.) THUS, the following points arise in the present case :-