BIHARI RAUT Vs. GAURHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no ground for interference with the lower appellate Court's decision in this case. The plaintiff sued under clause 6, section 24, Act X of 1859, to recover possession of 2 bigas 6 katas and 10 chittaks of land, from which he alleged himself to have been illegally dispossessed by the trustee of a religious endowment. He claimed to have held this land from the time of the permanent settlement at a fixed rate, and his cause of action was the letting of the land by the trustee to a third party. The defence was that the land was the nij jote of the temple; that it had never been let to the plaintiff, as alleged by him, from the date of the permanent settlement, although it had occasionally been let for short periods to the plaintiff's father; that no agreement had ever been come to as to a lease; that the plaintiff at last left the land uncultivated, and then the defendant leased it to a third party.

(2.) The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, considering it not proved that he had been holding this land from the time of the permanent settlement at fixed rates. The Court of Appeal took up the question as to whether plaintiff had or had not a right of occupancy, and finding on the evidence that he had, gave him a decree to recover possession of the land.

(3.) The ground is, that as the disputed land is the nij jote land of the temple, no cultivator of that land can obtain a right of occupancy with reference to the terms of section 6, Act X of 1859.