PURANMAL Vs. RAMJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 6. 8. 1956, upholding the decision of the S. D. O. , Tijara (Alwar District) in a case which commenced on 2. 11. 1953, under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, and was decided on 14. 12. 1955 presumably under sec. 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which came into force on 15. 10. 1955.

(2.) WE have beard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The applicant Puranmal claimed re-instatement before the trial court with the allegations that in Svt. 2009 he and Ramjilal opposite party were admitted as tenants of the land in dispute by the owner Mst. Kasturi; that in Svt. 2010 he (the applicant) sowed the Kharif harvest ; and that on 20. 10. 1953 the opposite party Ramjilal deliberately and wrongfully dispossessed him from the land by cutting the Kharif produce himself and later on not permitting him to participate in the Rabi harvest. Ramjilal resisted the claim and pleaded that he himself was admitted as a tenant of the land by Mst. Kasturi, that in Svt. 2009 he allowed Puranmal to share in cultivation, that towards the close of Svt. 2009 after Mst. Kasturi's death Puranmal fearing opposition from the villagers refused to have anything to do with the land, that thereafter Ramjilal alone faced the opposition of the villagers wherein he received multiple injuries and had to resort to criminal litigation to re-establish his possession over the land, and that he never prevented or dispossessed Puranmal from the land as Puranmal himself voluntarily ceased to do anything with it. After recording the evidence of the parties both the lower courts came to the conclusion that Puranmal failed to establish bis admission as a tenant to the land in dispute, that on the contrary Ramjilal was admitted as a tenant by Mst. Kasturi, and that Ramjilal took Puranmal in Svt. 2009 as a sharer in cultivation a status which was voluntarily given up by Puranmal in that very year. As a result of these findings the trial court rejected Puranmal's request for re-instatement and the first appellate court endorsed the findings of the trial court.