MATHURA SINGH Vs. MIRZA JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit of the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration that the suit land was their ralyati land and that the defendants-appellants were liable to be evicted therefrom was dismissed by the trial Court. THE lower appellate Court has reversed that decree. Hence, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit land measuring 3.60 acres, under khata No. 74 of village Sheopur in the district of Hazaribagh admittedly, once belonged to Jairaj, Chatarlal and Mahadeo Lal and, subsequently, was owned and possessed by their successor-in-interest Kashilal. THE case of the respondents is that Kashilal sold the suit land to them by a registered sale deed dated the 7th of September, 1942. THE respondents came in possession of the suit land and, thereafter, instituted Title Suit No. 36 of 1947 for declaration of title and partition. Defendant No. 1 of that suit, who is defendant No. 1 in the present suit, made out a case that he had taken the raiyati settlement of the suit land from Kashilal by a Hukumnama dated the 16th of July, 1932. It was held in that suit that the plaintiffs were raiyats and defendant No. 1 was dar-raiyat of the suit land and would divide the produce thereof between him and the plaintiffs of that suit. THE said decree of the trial Court in that suit was affirmed by the High Court. According to the respondents, the appellants' status was that of tenants at will and they were liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the respondents served a notice on defendants \ to 3 and one Baijnath Singh to vacate the suit land by the date mentioned in that notice and when the appellants did not vacate by that date, the suit was instituted.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the notice served on the appellants was proper and legal, but it dismissed the suit as, in its opinion, the appellants had acquired the dar-raiyati right with occupancy. THE lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the trial Court on the question of service of notice. Really, the finding of the trial Court on that question was not challenged before the lower appellate Court. In its opinion, the appellants could not acquire right of occupancy in the suit land. Hence, it has decreed the suit.