MAHABIR PRASAD RAMDHIN Vs. SAMAROO KALIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mahabir Prasad preferred this appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Tare J. in Second Appeal No. 163 of 1954.

(2.) The dispute relates to certain occupancy fields, which were held by two brothers Kaliram and Maniram jointly. In the year 1939 they sold them by two separate sale-deeds (Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2) to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,260/- and Rs. 73/- respectively. These sale-deeds are not registered. Respondent Samaroo is the son of Kaliram. After the sale to the appellant, Samaroo and Mst. Ghasin, widow of Maniram, applied to the Revenue Courts under Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920, for being placed in possession of the suit lands on the allegation that the sales in question were in contravention of Section 12 ibid. Mst. Ghasin did not prosecute the proceedings, but Samaroo fought the matter upto the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and finally the Board of Revenue all held that Samaroo was entitled to possession of the fields. Their possession was accordingly delivered to him on 12-11-1949, i.e. ten years after the dispute started. During all this period, the appellant had paid the rent to the landlord and had continued in possession of the fields.

(3.) Having lost possession on account of the order of the Board of Revenue, the appellant filed the present suit for possession of the field against Surname. His claim was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court maintained the decree. However, in second appeal the learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the suit.