FATEH MOHAMMED Vs. SHER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, whereby, reversing the decree of the trial Court, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction, which he instituted against the respondents-defendants, has been dismissed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts may be noticed first. Appellant--plaintiff and respondents Sher Khan, Chuhra Khan and late Sarwar Ali, now represented by his LRs, are the sons of late Shri Faiz Mohammed, who died in the year 1946. Deceased respondent Sabratan, who was impleaded as defendant No.4, was the widow of said Faiz Mohammed, or say the mother of the plaintiff and the above-named respondents-defendants. Faiz Mohammed had some understanding with the owners that the suit land and some other land, total area of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? which was around 47-48 bighas and was part of river-bed, would be reclaimed by him and after reclamation he would be allowed to cultivate that land. In lieu of rent, he was supposed to have discharged the liability of the landowners for payment of land revenue. Faiz Mohammed died in the year 1946.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No.1 to 3 filed a common written statement. Defendant No.4, the widow of Faiz Mohammed, filed a separate written statement. However, the stand taken in the two written statements was the same. It was stated that on the death of Faiz Mohammed his widow, impleaded as defendant No.4, entered into a contract with the landowners, under which the entire land which had been given for reclamation to the father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3, was given to defendant No.4 for reclamation and she, assisted by defendants No. 1 to 3, reclaimed a substantial portion of the land and made the same cultivable. They further stated that proprietary rights in respect of 22 bighas 8 biswas land, out of the total area, were conferred on defendant No.4, the widow of Faiz Mohammed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, but with respect to the rest of the land, i.e. the suit land, proprietary rights could not be conferred upon her, because she did not have the money to pay the compensation assessed, as per the scale given in Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They alleged that the plaintiff in connivance with the landowners got incorporated his name as tenant in the revenue papers in respect of the suit land and on the strength of that entry he even managed to get the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights attested in his favour behind their back.