NAGESHWAR BHARTHI Vs. RAM NARAIN BHARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of one of the learned Judges of this Court. The facts which have given rise to the litigation are briefly as follows : One Sheonath Bharthi was the mahant of a math and in that capacity held certain lands as an inferior proprietor. He had a chela or disciple in one Sheobaksh. The ascetics of this math were not allowed to marry, but Sheobaksh did marry. The result was that Sheobaksh became disentitled to become the mahant, as a successor to Sheonath. There was a dispute between Sheonath and Sheobaksh and certain persons, as arbitrators, settled it. Sheobaksh was given 51 bighas of land for his maintenance. It was further provided that Sheobaksh's son would be initiated by Sheonath as his chela, and that son would succeed Sheonath. Sheo-bakhsh had, as a matter of fact, three sons. One of these Ramnarain, the present respondent, was initiated as a chela and succeeded Sheonath to the math. On the death of Sheobaksh his two remaining sons, namely, Jainarain and Mahesh, took possession of the 51 bighas which had been given to Sheobaksh for maintenance. After the death of Jainarain and Mahesh two suits were instituted by Ramnarain against the sons of Jainarain for recovery of rent on the allegation that the sons of Jainarain held the land as tenants of Ramnarain. It appears that Mahesh and Jainarain divided the land originally granted to Sheobaksh and we are concerned with only a portion of the 51 bighas.

(2.) In the Revenue Court, in the suits for arrears of rent, the defendants (the present plaintiff appellants) pleaded that they were not tenants of the land but they were the proprietors of the same. Thereupon the Revenue Court directed the present plaintiffs to institute a suit in the Civil Court to obtain a declaration of their title and status. The suit was accordingly instituted in 1921 and was, apparently, fought up in two Courts. It was ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiffs with liberty to sue again. They filed their suit out of which the present appeal has arisen in 1923.

(3.) The first Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had not proved their title to the land as having been acquired by adverse possession which was their plea. The lower Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the defendants and their predecessors had completed a title in themselves by holding the property adversely to the mahant for more than 12 years. A learned Judge of this Court has reversed the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restored the decree of the first Court, his opinion being that there was no case of adverse possession.