ROMESH CHAND Vs. KIRPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute, in this appeal, which is directed against a decree of the District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an appeal, against a decree of the Senior Sabordinate Judge, Bilaspur, was allowed and the suit of the appellants was dismissed, relates to land, measuring 49 Bighas and 11 Biswas, situated in village Bagi. The land was owned by the Government and the appellants were its occupancy -tenants. The land was being cultivated by Fauna, as a tenant -at -will, under the appellants. Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 had brought a suit, against Fauna and the respondents sons and other relatives of Paunu; for the issue of a permanent injunction, and in the alternative for possession of the land. Appellant No. 4, who was studying in a college, at Simla, was impleaded as a pro forma defendant, in the suit. The allegations, in the suit, were that Paunu had, on the 18th March, 1959, by a registered deed, relinquished his tenancy rights and had also surrendered possession of the land in favour of the appellants, that after relinquishment, Paunu had no interest in the land, but that he and the respondents were unlawfully interfering with the possession of the appellants. It was prayed that Paunu and the respondents may be restrained, by the issue of a permanent injunction, from interfering with the possession of the appellants. In the alternative, it was prayed, that if Paunu and the respondents were to take possession of the land during the pendency of the suit, then possession may be restored to the appellants.

(2.) THE suit was contested by Paunu and the respondents. They admitted that Paunu was a tenant under the appellants, but denied that he had ever relinquished his tenancy rights or had surrendered possession of the land. It was pleaded, that the document, dated the 18th March, 1959, was got executed by the appellants, through fraud and misrepresentation.

(3.) ON appeal, by Paunu and others, the learned District Judge disagreed with the view of the Senior Subordinate Judge that the mere execution of the relinquishment -deed Ex. P.W. 1/A was tantamount to the relinquishment of tenancy rights, by Paunu. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that to be effectual, the relinquishment deed should have been accompanied by surrender of possession. As Paunu had not surrendered possession of the land, the learned District Judge held that there was no relinquishment of tenancy rights and the appellants were not entitled to get possession of the land. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal, and after setting aside the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, dismissed the suit of the appellants.