LAWS(RAJ)-1955-2-6

MADHU SUDAN Vs. MULA

Decided On February 16, 1955
MADHU SUDAN Appellant
V/S
MULA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S. D.O. Bayana dated 30.11.54 refusing to grant protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The main contention of the applicant is that he was admitted to tenancy in Svt. 2009 by the opposite party No. 3, Shivkant, and that in the following year i.e. Svt. 2009 he was accepted as a tenant by the opposite party No. I and 2 and as such the opposite party had no right to dispossess him of his tenancy. It is clear from the record that the opposite party No. 1 and 2, Moola and Sravan, filed a suit for declaration of occupancy rights against the opposite party No. 3, Shivkant, as early as 1st March, 1951. Subsequently in 1952 an amendment was sought in the plaint to the effect that Moola and Sarvan had been dispossessed of the land in dispute by Shivkant and should therefore, be put back in possession. This Suit for declaration of occupancy rights and recovery of possession was decreed on 8.1.53. In execution of this decree Moola and Sarvan were put back in possession of filed No- 185 on 9.5.53 and of filed No. 386 on 26.2.54. It is also clear from the record that actual possession by ploughing the land on the spot was delivered to the opposite party No. 1 and 2. The present applicant filed an application for recovery of possession of the same land under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance alleging that he had been dispossessed by opposite party on 6.6.54. The trial court found that the applicant was not dispossessed on 6.6.54 as alleged by him but that since the actual possession of the land has been transferred to the opposite party Moola and Sarvan on 26.2.54, his application computed from that date was beyond the prescribed limitation of three months. The S.D.O. therefore, dismissed the application. Hence this revision.