DIALI RAM Vs. MAMLESHWAR PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 9-D, 36-D, 39-D 69-D, 119-D, 121-D of 1962 and 153-D of 1961.

(2.) So far as R.S.A. 36-D/of 1962 is concerned it is by Diali Ram tenant, who was declared Bhumidar, under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 . Mamleshwar Pershad and Kamta Parshad plaintiff-respondents were the owners of plots of land bearing Khasra numbers 198, 199 and 200 measuring in all 37 bighas and 17 biswas situate in village Chokri, Mubarakabad, Delhi. Diali Ram appellant was declared Bhumidar with respect to the entire area comprised in Khasra No. 198, 8 bighas and 18 biswas out of Khasra No. 199 and 5 bighas, 17 biswas out of Khasra No. 200. There is no dispute before me so far as Khasra numbers 198 and 200 are concerned and the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the total area comprised in Khasra No. 199 was 10 bighas and 18 biswas. That was taken by Diali Ram appellant along with other land on lease by a lease deed, dated the 25th of August, 1953. Thereafter the appellant surrendered possession of 2 bighas out of Khasra No. 199 and it was in view of this surrender that he was made a Bhumidar of an area of 8 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra No 199.

(3.) Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that both the Courts below were in error inasmuch as they were under the impression that it was out of 8 bighas and 18 biswas that the appellant surrendered 2 bighas. According to the learned counsel the reading of the plaint itself shows that the total area comprising Khasra No. 199, i.e., 10 bighas and 18 biswas was taken by the appellant on lease and it was out of this area that he surrendered possession of 2 bighas. The learned counsel submits that the appellant was under the circumstances rightly declared Bhumidar with respect to an area of 8 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra No. 199. Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the respondent, does not seriously dispute the contention raised by Mr. Mahajan. In my opinion there is force in the contention of Mr. Mahajan and he is entitled to succeed to the extent that the order of the lower appellate Court will stand modified to the extent that the declaration of Bhumidari in favour of Diali Ram, appellant, with respect to an area of 8 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra No. 199 was legal and proper.