LAKSHBIR Vs. ANANT RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated February 6, 1964, of a learned Single Judge, reported as Lakshbir Singh v. Anant Ram, 1964 P.L.R. 610 dismissing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Appellant, Lakshbir Singh, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) THE facts of the case are somewhat complicated and not all are available from the annexure filed by the parties with the original petition. The learned Single Judge had to call for the files of the revenue authorities for clarification of the facts and we had also the facility of looking into the same. Reference to annexure will be to those with the original petition, and reference to the Exhibits will be to those on File No. 87 of the Naib -Tehsildar Agrarian. It is, therefore, necessary to give some considerable details of the facts so that the matters in controversy become clear.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the details of this matter will appear a little later, it is pertinent to state here that Anant Ram, Respondent, claimed to have also become tenant of the four field numbers under Jahangir Chand Madhok, the owner, for a period of three years beginning from 1952. So his tenancy was from 1952 to 1955. Jahangir Chand Madhok admitted this claim. He further said that at the time of the execution of the mortgage deed of March 2, 1953, he informed Benarsi Das and others, the mortgagees, of the factum of the existence of tenancy on the land in favour of Anant Ram, Respondent. The learned Single Judge has believed this and has found as a fact that Anant Ram, Respondent, was a tenant of the land under Jahangir Chand Madhok, because of the tenancy created in his favour for three years in 1952. So when Benarsi Das and others took mortgage of the land from Jahangir Chand Madhok, Anant Ram, Respondent, became their tenant under the lease he had already from Jahangir Chand Madhok.