HEMCHANDRA DANSANA Vs. DOLAMANI DANSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The relation of the parties would appear from the following genealogical tree. Mahendra was the protected Thikadar of village Bhairapur in Barpalli Zamindari. After his death, Raghumani became the protected Thikadar and possessed all the SIR and KHUDKAST lands of the village. In a partition between Raghumani and the defendant the disputed property was allotted to their mother Kanchan towards her maintenance. The plaintiffs' case is that it was agreed that the disputed lands would revert to Raghumani after the death of Kanchan. She died in 1952 and thereafter the lands reverted to plaintiff No. 1 who was the Thikadar after his father's death. The lands were subsequently partitioned amongst the plaintiffs who were possessing different portions in their individual right, title and interest. The defendant created disturbance in their possession and a proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. was started. The preliminary order was passed on 13-11-1958 and the proceeding terminated in favour of the defendant on 3-8-1959. The suit was filed on 16-8-1959.

(2.) DEFENDANT admits that the disputed lands were allotted to Kanchan in lieu of maintenance, but challenges the existence of an agreement whereunder the right of reversion vested exclusively in the protected Thikadar. The defendant's further plea was that Kanchan was unable to cultivate the lands and that he was cultivating the same on her behalf. On 22-8-1944 she executed an unregistered deed of gift in his (defendant's) favour and delivered possession of the disputed lands whereafter the defendant was in possession in his own right, title and interest and got himself mutated. The plaintiffs' suit was, according to him, barred by adverse possession.