MAHADEVA AND ORS. Vs. GANESHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs in this case are the landlords of village Ram Bas, Tehsil Narnaul and the defendants are Chamars of that place. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to appropriate the manure belonging to the defendants whom they describe as Kamins and prayed for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the removal of the manure. The defendants categorically denied the allegations in the plaint. An issue 'whether the Plaintiffs had been getting manure from the defendants in the past and they were entitled to the injunction prayed for' was framed. The trial Court decided that issue in favour of the Plaintiffs and decreed the suit but the learned District Judge has differed with that conclusion and accepted the defendants' appeal.

(2.) FOUR witnesses were examined by the Plaintiffs and all of them are Biswedars and interested in the result of this litigation. The defendants are indubitably Chamars but they are not shown to have been doing any menial work for any of the landlords. They are therefore not necessarily Kamins in the sense the word 'Kamin' is popularly used. The defendants have been since long time past cultivating land under the Biswedars in the village but that would not bring them in the category of Kamins as the distinction between a tenant and a person rendering menial service is too clear. The main source of livelihood of the defendants is agriculture and they till the land with their own hands. It is true that they own no land of their own but it is admitted that they take land on lease and live upon agriculture. Mr. Tiwari referred to Clause 12 of the Wajib -ul -arz of village Ram Bas prepared in the year 1952 Bk. which runs as follows:

(3.) BEFORE effect could be given to this custom, it must stand proved that the defendants are Kamins which has not been done in this case. The so -called custom aims at depriving the Kamins of their manure which they require for cultivation of the lands obtained on lease or by soiling which they can make money. The unreasonableness of the custom in this village is apparent as the Kamins must deliver up their manure to the Biswedars even though they may need it themselves & they must secure manure from other sources to meet their own requirements of cultivation. The custom casts no corresponding obligation or liability upon the Biswedars. The mere fact that the Kamins are residing in the village of the Biswedars does not confer a right upon the latter to get the manure of the former without consideration. In the circumstances given above, even if the defendants were Kamins I would very much hesitate to enforce a custom which is quite unreasonable, unjust and oppressive. The appeal is consequently dismissed with costs.