AKHEY SINGH Vs. MAHAVEER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Thakur Akhey Singh against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of- the former State of Jodhpur. It has come before us for hearing under the provisions of Ordinance No. XL of 1949 & Ordinance No. XII of 1950. The appellant is the representative-in-interest of the defendant in the suit.

(2.) The suit was filed by Mutha Sumer Chandji, who is now represented in this appeal by his successors Mahaveer Chand and Shanti Chand. The case of the plaintiff was that Durjan Singhji, the father of the original defendant Sanwat Singh, had executed a registered deed of lease on Besakh Sudi 10, Smt. 1997 corresponding to 6th of May, 1941, in favour of the plaintiff. By this deed, Durjain Singhji pleased out two villages, namely, Lavera Chhota, and Kajnau Bari, to the plaintiff for a period of 24 years. The plaintiff came in possession of the villages in July 1941, but the Thikana was taken under the Court of Wards in February, 1942, and therefore, the plaintiff was dispossessed from these villages. Later the Thikana was released from the Court of Wards and came in the possession of the Jagirdar. Thereafter, the present suit was filed on the 23rd of November, 1943 and it was prayed that the plaintiff be put in possession of the two villages. In the alternative, it was prayed that in case it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the two villages, a decree for Rs. 35,000/- be passed in his favour according to the terms of the deed of lease, and a charge of the decree should be created on the two villages.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant on a number of grounds and eventually the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur gave a decree for Rs. 18,006/- to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit for possession. Thereupon, there was an appeal to the High Court of the former State of Jodhpur by the defendant. That appeal was allowed and the decree of the District Judge was set aside and the suit was decreed in the plaintiff's favour by putting him in possession of the two villages for a period of 23 years and 3 months in accordance with the terms of the deed of lease. The present appeal is against this decree.