DAYARAM Vs. MANPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.96 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil appeal No. 1-A/95 whereby the appeal of the present appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Class I, Bhind in Civil Suit No. 211-A/84 decided on 24.7.87 was confirmed. Respondent No. 1 - plaintiff had filed a suit against the appellants' predecessor that the plaintiff was a Krisak in the suit land since before the Zamindari abolition and so he became bhoomiswami of the land with the passing of MP. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the original owner Prabhudayal was left with no right in the land. Prabhudayal died on 22.11.83. Prabhudayal had filed two civil suits about this land which were dismissed on 18.4.77 and again on 16.5.78.

(2.) THE defendant-appellants' plea was that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and Prabhudayal had been always in possession as Bhoomiswami and after Prabhudayal these appellants-defendants were in possession continuously. The land was never given for cultivation to the plaintiff Manpal by the defendants or by Prabhudayal. The trial Court decreed the suit of Manpal. The trial Court found that the plaintiff Manpal had obtained tenancy right from Prabhudayal from the time of his Zamindari and therefore, he became Bhoomiswami and continued in possession. Hence, the decree for declaration declaring his right and injunction against interference by the defendant- appellant was passed.

(3.) THE trial Court interpreted these documents to be that Prabhudayal was recorded the owner (Krisak) of the suit land and that since Samvat 2007 Manpal, the plaintiff, was recorded in possession as Up Krisak and has been continued to be so recorded. So it was established that Prabhudayal had sub-let this land to Manpal. It was also noticed that in the judgment Ex. P-9 and P-!0 between the parties the entries in favour of Manpal were found to be correct and the suit of Prabhudayal which was challenging the entries in favour of Manpal was dismissed. It was observed that this finding was binding between the parties. Hence the suit of Manpal was decreed.