HARI PROSAD AGARWALLA Vs. ABDUL HAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the pltf. They had filed the suit for declarations that the lands described in schedule A to the plaint belonged to them; that they were in possession as maiyaddi lessees; that the defts. had no right, title or interest in the same; & for permanent injunction restraining the defts. from working the lire-clay in the aforesaid lands & from removing the fire-clay therefrom & also for damages against the defts.

(2.) The pltfs. case is that they had taken a lease for 21 years for extracting fire-clay in seven villages, including village Mandra, the village in suit, from one Shrimati Hirakumari Debi by a registered lease dated 30-1-1934 & that since then they have been in possession by extracting fireclay in village Mandra & other villages. They alleged that since January 1945 the defts., in collusion with one another, have been illegally extracting fire clay from that village without any right or title to do so.

(3.) The suit was contested by deft. 1 alone, although written statements were filed by the other deft. as well. The contesting deft, pleaded that the pltfs. had no valid lease & that they acquired no right or title to village Mandra by virtue of the said lease. He alleged that the lease in favour of the pltfs. was merely a paper transaction & had never been acted upon & the pltfs. were never in possession of village Mandra. He also alleged that Hirakumari Debi had no right to execute the lease in favour of the pltfs , as she was not the owner of the village. But later on he had to admit that he had himself taken a lease of the fire-clay right of village Mandra from the said Shrimati Hirakumari Debi. His lease is dated 5-10-1943 & his allegation is that even before the execution of the registered lease he was extracting fire-clay from that village under an unregistered Hukumnama dated 5-10-1939.