HATTI LAL Vs. BARJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have given rise to this second appeal by the defendants may be stated as below: -

(2.) SMT. Barja Bai, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the court of the Asstt. Collector Bundi against the appellant with the averment that Khasra No. 75, 76 and 77 in village Lakheri remained in the cultivatory possession of her husband Shri Gajanand upto Samwat 2009 when he died and that thereafter she succeeded his Khatedari rights, and that a mutation to this effect was also attested on 3.3.1956 by an order of the Tehsildar and the Collector concerned. It was alleged that the appellant, sometime in the month of July 1952, unlawfully took possession of this land and deprived the respondent from its peaceful enjoyment. It was prayed that the appellant be dispossessed as a trespasser. In reply, the appellant admitted that this land originally belonged to Gajanand who die4 in Samvat 2009. It was pleaded that the said Gajanand had adopted the appellant as his son on 12.6.1952 and executed a document Ex. A/1 of the same date bequeathing his property including this land to the appellant as his heir and that in pursuance of the said document the appellant came in possession of the entire property of the deceased including this land. It was also stated that he had been also paying maintenance allowance etc. to the respondent, liquidated the debts of the deceased and married his daughter. It was urged that the appellants* possession was, therefore, lawful and the respondent could not evict him as a trespasser. The trial court framed certain issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and eventually decreed the suit against the appellant and ordered his ejectment and also awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 632/13/- for the last six years. An appeal was filed before the learned Commissioner against the said judgment and decree of the trial court. The lower appellate court essentially discussed the effect of document Ex. A/1 on the rights of the parties in the light of the provisions of Secs. 19 and 20 of the Bundi Tenancy Act and confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendant-appellant has now come in second appeal before us. The learned counsel for both the parties argued the case at some length.