MOHAN LAL Vs. MOHUN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, against an appellate order of the learned District Judge Mahasu, has arisen out of an application filed by the respondent, under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act), for the acquisition of proprietary rights in the land, measuring 27 Bighas and 17 Biswas. situated in village Chethla, Sub-Tehsil Kotkhai, District Mahasu. The land belonged to Smt. Kubja and Smt. Subda, minor daughters of Smt. Radhu. The case of the respondent was that Smt. Radhu, as the guardian of the minor proprietors, had leased out the land, to him, and that he was in possession of the land as a tenantat- will and was entitled to acquire proprietary rights in the land under the aforesaid sub section. The respondent filed the application for acquisition of proprietary rights on 6-3-61. Smt. Subda had died at the time of filing the application and Smt. Kubja had become the sole proprietor.

(2.) The application of the respondent was opposed by Smt. Radhu, as guardian of Smt. Kubja. She denied that she had created any tenancy in favour of the respondent. She alleged that the respondent had taken forcible and illegal possession of the land and had relinquished that possession too in a Panchayat. Smt Radhu, further, alleged that she, as guardian of Smt. Kubja. had sold the land to the appellant, on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated the 6th December, 1960 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000.

(3.) The appellant who was a minor also filed objections, through his father, as next friend, against the grant of the application of the respondent. Besides taking up the pleas, which had been taken up by Smt. Radhu, the appellant pleaded that he was a minor and as he had no other means of livelihood, he was entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Abolition Act and the respondent could not acquire proprietary rights It was, further, pleaded that trees and buildings were standing on the land and the appellant was entitled to compensation for them, in case the respondent be granted proprietary rights.