DALLA Vs. NANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application arises out of proceedings taken in execution of the order of this Board dated 12. 11. 1951 by which the application filed by Nanu, opposite party under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949 was accepted on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties and the order was passed according to the compromise. In the application under sec. 7 of the Ordinance it was alleged by Nanu that the land attached to two kothis and some barani land had been partitioned between the parties who were brothers and each was cultivating the share that had fallen to him. The opposite party Dalla unlawfully dispossessed him from his share of the land so he applied for reinstatement.

(2.) DURING the course of the enquiry Nanu agreed that if the opposite party Dalla would state in temple how much land attached to this kothi was held by Nanu and how much land Nanu may be allowed to cultivate in future he would abide by it. Dalla according to the agreement accepted by him entered the temple and stated that the applicant Nanu was entitled to one fifth share of chahi and barani land, and he should have that one fifth part. The area was to be shown on the spot by Dalla. In this agreement a third kothi had also been included which was not included in the application filed by Nanu. The trial court, without recording this compromise, simply consigned the case to records. Thereupon an application was filed under sec. 10 (2) of the Ordinance in this court and the application was accepted and the compromise was allowed to be recorded and an order was passed accordingly.

(3.) IN 1950 Allahabad 690 there was a piece of land which was not used by any co-sharers and one of them reclaimed that piece of land and converted it into a source of income. The other co-sharer sued for joint possession. It was held that the courts should be reluctant to disturb possession of such a co-sharer by giving a decree for joint possession to another co-sharer who stood by while one of them was spending money and labour in reclaiming the land. IN the present case there was no piece of waste land in the first instance which the non-applicant had reclaimed and secondly the applicant did not pray for joint possession. Therefore the above ruling did not apply.