BHOM SINGH Vs. CHAMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant against whom the respondents suit for ejectment has been decreed by the first appellate court after reversing the decree of the trial court.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The suit was instituted on 6-10-47 in the court of the Revenue Officer, Sojat, of the former Jodhpur State, with the allegations that the defendants had not paid rents for Svt. year 2001 to 2003,that they had taken away the harvest without carrying out the latai of the produce and that they have spoiled the land by digging pits and preparing bricks. The trial court framed six issues on 9-2-50 on the point of the amount of rent payable by the defendants to the plaintiff and matters allied thereto. Subsequently on the application of the plaintiffs a fresh issue was added on 11-2-52 on the point as to whether the defendants had rendered agriculture in the land impossible by digging pits in it ? The trial court after discussing the evidence of the parties held that the pits dug in the land were for preparing bricks for carrying out repairs to the well and that it was an improvement with in the meaning of law and not an act detrimental or inconsistent with the purpose for which the land was let. It,however, held that a sum of Rs. 441/12/- was outstanding against the defendants as arrears of rent. A decree for this amount was accordingly granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, and the plaintiffs' prayer for ejectment was rejected. The defendants went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner,jodhpur. The plaintiff filed a cross-objection praying for the ejectment of the defendants. The learned Additional Commissioner held that preparing of bricks amounted to a defendant act and hence directed ejectment of the defendants. The defendants' appeal was rejected. Hence this second appeal by the defendants wherein the only contention raised is as regards the decree of the lower appellate court regarding ejectment, The propriety of the trial courts' decree relating to arrears of rent awarded to the plaintiffs has not at all been challenged before us.