GHISA RAM Vs. RAMBOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be sated thus: -

(2.) GHISA applied on 28. 7. 52 for reinstatement under sec. 7 Raj. Protection of Tenants Ordinance (since repealed) against Rambool Singh before S. D. O. Behror, with the allegation that he (GHISA) was a non-occupancy tenant of the land in dispute in Svt. 2008 and that Rambool Singh who was discharged from the army sometime in 1951-dispossed him wrongfully on 27. 7. 52. Rambool Singh contested the claim on the ground that the provisions of the Ordinance were not applicable to lands belonging to Military personnel. The trial Court upheld this plea and rejected the application. GHISA came up in revision before the Board which accepted the same and remanded the case back to the trial Court with the observation that as the land was let out to GHISA by Rambool Singh after his discharge from the Military the provisions of the ordinance would not be applicable to the present case which therefore needed determination on merits. The S. D. O. on further enquiry allowed the application and ordered reinstatement of GHISA. Rambool Singh came up in revision before the Board but met with no success. GHISA was put in possession over the land on 26. 6. 55. Rambool Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the Board's decision. The same was accepted on 12. 7. 56. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that the interpretation put on the Government Notification No. F. 1 (4) Rev/51 dated 11th January, 1951 by the Board was very narrow and was not borne out by the clear language of the Notification. The decision of the Board was, therefore, set aside and it was held that GHISA was not eligible to seek protection under the Ordinance and the only course left to him was to resort to the ordinary law. Rambol Singh thereafter applied for restitution under Sec. 144 CPC and took back the possession of 7. 8. 56. Thereafter GHISA filed this suit for recovery of possession and declaration of his khatedari rights over the land in dispute. It was alleged that even a Military personnel was not entitled to take the law into his own hands and that he should have sought GHISA's ejectment under the provisions of the Alwar State Revenue Code which was then in force. Rambool Singh in his written statement pleaded that he did not dispossess the plaintiff and as subsequent clarified by him his contention was that the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered that tenancy. Limitation was also pleaded. The trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff GHISA was in possession as a tenant over the disputed land on 27. 7. 52, that he was dis-possessed wrongfully therefrom and that he was entitled to recover possession. The suit was accordingly decreed in GHISA's favour. Rambool Singh went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner Ajmer who by his decision dated 12. 8. 58 allowed the same and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal by GHISA plaintiff.