ABDULLA KHAN Vs. NAVALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this second appeal may briefly be staged as below: -

(2.) NAVALA brought a suit on 2. 9. 52 in the court of the S. D. O. Ballabhnagar (District Udaipur) against Abdulla Khan son of Sher Khan, Sarvar Khan, Gafoor Khan, Mehboob Khan and Daryab Khan sons of Abdulla Khan and Somvar Khan defendants for ejectment and recovery of possession. The averments in the plaint were that the land in dispute (Well No. 266 and Arazi Nos. 263 to 271 measuring 19 Bighas 19 bis assessed at Rs. 30/12/- in village Balatha) was acquired from Thikana Delwara through a Bapi patta dated 7. 7. 1952; that the Mal Siga of the Thikana arranged the delivery of possession over the land in dispute in favour of NAVALA on 8. 7. 52 in the presence of defendants 1 to 6 who raised no objections at that time; that NAVALA deposited a portion of the patta premiun in the Thikana after having agreed to pay the balance in instalments and that on 13. 7. 52 when NAVALA proceeded to the land for cultivating it the defendants resisted him and forcibly cultivated it themselves. Abdulla and his four sons, defendants 1 to 5 contested the claim on the ground that the land in dispute is in the recorded khatedari of Somvar Khan from whom they purchased the tenancy rights through a registered deed in lieu of Rs. 599/-; that they had been in continuous possession since Svt. 1994 that NAVALA was never put in possession and hence there could hardly be any question of his dispossession. Somvar Khan, defendant No. 6 corroborated the plea set up by the defendants 1 to 5. The Jagirdar Delwara who was initially impleaded as defendant No. 7 in the suit admitted the claim in toto. He was however, subsequently transposed as a plaintiff in the course of the inquiry. The following issues were framed in the case: - (1) Whether the defdts. No 1 to 5 dispossessed the plaintiff NAVALA by force on 13. 7. 52 corresponding to Sawan Badi 7, Svt. 2009 from the land under dispute as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint? (Platff.) (2) Did the defdts. No. 1 to 6 know the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 handed over possession of the land under dispute to pltff. No. 1 and are they estopped from raising any objection at this stage because they raised no objection on the spot as they knowingly agreed to the transfer? (3) (a) Did the Thikana Delwara grant a patta of the land under dispute to the plaintiff No. 1 NAVALA? (pltff.) (b) Is Thikana Delwara competent to grant the patta of the land under dispute and as such the patta is valid? (4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled. (5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff NAVALA can be entertained without amendment because the Thikana Delwara was impleaded as one of the defendants.