MURARI CHANDRA DE Vs. DINA NATH CHANDRA DIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think that this case must go back to the lower Appellate Court for a re-hearing of the appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of the disputed land on declaration of his title thereto. His allegation was that he had let out the property to the defendant and was in possession by receipt of rent from him, but that in a rent-suit the defendant having denied the plaintiff's title, the rent-suit was dismissed. This suit was thereupon brought for establishing his title.

(3.) Now the Court below has held that as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant in the rent-suit, it must be held that the appellant (sic) had been holding the land as a trespasser and farther that the plaintiff was not entitled to prove that the defendant was a tenant under him. The learned Subordinate Judge has evidently held that the plaintiff is precluded from showing that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant.