NITYA GAUDA Vs. MONGALA BAGDEFIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant and for mesne profits. The suit-land admittedly belonged to one Gora Misra. The plaintiff claims title thereto by virtue of a sale-deed dated 19-1-44, executed in his favour by the widow of the said Gora Misra. The defendant is the cultivating tenant of the land. According to the plaintiff, he was let into possession by the vendor of the plaintiff under an unregistered lease-deed, Ex. 2 dated 10-3-41, about four years prior to the date of the suit. Since the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff and his vendor, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for ejectment. The defendant's case is that he had been in cultivating possession of the suit- land for long time even under Gora Misra and that after Gora Misra's death, one Magata Misra, the adopted son of Gora Misra succeeded to the property and that though for sometime after Gora Misra's death he was paying rent to the vendor of the plaintiff he was so paying only in her capacity as the guardian of the minor Magata Misra, that he has recently attorned to the said Magata Misra himself, who is looking after his affairs and that the plaintiff has no title to sue. He denies the genuineness of Ex. 2 and also claims that in any case, he has got occupancy rights in the suit-land under his cultivation, and cannot be ejected.

(2.) The Court below accepted the plaintiff's case and gave a decree for ejectment of the defendant and also for payment of mesne profits for 1944 and subsequent years until delivery at the rate of 27 Putties of paddy and Rs. 30-80 cash per year. The defendant has accordingly brought up this appeal to this Court.

(3.) This plea of want of title in the plaintiff and his vendor raised by the defendant on the ground that the property of Gora Misra devolved on his adopted son, one Magata Misra, can no longer be sustained on the merits and the evidence, in view of the decision which we have just pronounced in the connected First Appeal No. 13/47, arising out of a suit between the said Magata on one side and the plaintiff's vendor and the plaintiff on the other. The defendant herein was a witness in support of the adoption in that suit. In that appeal we have held agreeing with the judgment of the Court below that the adoption has not been proved. That plea has, therefore, no substance and is not tenable on the evidence. The only question which has been, therefore, argued in this appeal, is whether the defendant has occupancy rights or is liable to be evicted.