MANGLIA Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 14.11.53 whereby the order of the Collector, Bharatpur dated 29.4.53 was reversed and that of the Tehsildar Bari dated 10.7.51 was restored.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Mithanlal, non -applicant No. 2, filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain fields against Shyamlal, non -applicant No. 1 in Tehsil Bari and obtained a decree in his favour on 31.5.49 and possession in execution of the decree was transferred to Mithanlal on 1.6.49. Shyamlal then went in appeal against that decree of Tehsildar Bari to the Assistant Collector, Dholpur who reversed the decree and cancelled the order of Tehsildar on 23.11.49. Shyamlal then applied for restitution under sec. 144 C.P.C. to the Tehsildar who ordered on 17.12.49 that possession of Shyamlal might be restored over such fields as may not be under standing crops and the standing crops would be gathered by the cultivators. In compliance of this order the Girdawar Kanugo reported on 18.12.49 that possession of the land had been transferred from Mithanlal to Shyam Lal and the cultivators had been told together the standing crops and a dakhalnama was executed by Shyamlal on 24.12.49 to the effect that he had obtained possession of the land in dispute as per orders of the Tehsildar. It appears however that only symbolical possession was given to Shyamlal as he again applied on 23.6.51 before the Tehsildar Bari for actual possession of the land in dispute. Against this, Mangalia applicant and others filed an objection that since Shyamlal had already been given symbolical possession and they were old tenants, there could be no question of physical possession of the land being delivered to Shyamlal. The Tehsildar therefore, rejected Shyamlals application on 10.7.51. Shyamlal then filed an appeal against this order to the Collector, Bharatpur, who rejected the appeal on 29.4.53. Shyamlal then went in second appeal before the Additional Commissioner Jaipur who allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and ordered delivery of actual possession of the land to Shyamlal, Hence this revision by Mangalia.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The main ground urged in support of this revision on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant being a third party in possession of the land in dispute, the decree against Shyamlal could not be executed against him, that the transfer of actual possession of the land to Shyamlal resulted in the ejectment of the applicant who being a tenant was entitled to protection under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance.