BADRI NATH Vs. WAZIR RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants second appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of the land measuring 7 marlas comprising Khasra No. 90 situate in village Rator Dhok and for mesne profits. The suit was tried by the Sub Registrar. Munsiff Jammu who decreed the suit and also awarded Rs. 90.00 as mesne pro ­fits in favour of the plaintiff, On appeal the District Judge, Jammu affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by this order the defendant has come up in further appeal before this court.

(2.) IT is appropriate to recount the facts of this case. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner of the land in dispute and the same was in his possession. About three years ago the defen ­dant took forcible possession of the land. He has, therefore, prayed for recovery of possession and has also charged Rs. 90.00 as mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per year. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land or that he had been in possession of the same.

(3.) PROCEEDINGS in the case, however, reveal that the plaintiff was no doubt the owner of the suit land before the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act came into force. After the Act came into force he could only retain only 182 kanals in his possession as owner. Document Ex. P. W. 1 above that the plaintiff while exercising his choice did not claim the suit land. Thus by vir ­tue of Section 4 of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act the proprietory right of the plaintiff in the suit land extinguished. No changes in the column of Girdawari were made subsequent to it and the plaintiff is shown to be in occupation of the land as owner through Kirpu who was in cultivating possession of the same. That land, it appears, was not mutated in the name of this Kirpu under the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. But according to the revenue record Kirpu is shown to be in possession of the land in dispute from the year 2004 Bikrimi to 2016 Bikrimi. It is, however, admitted by Kirpu in his statement that the plaintiff forcibly took possession of the land in dispute in bet ­ween these years. Thereafter the appellant occupied the land and this furnished a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the present suit.