BISHEN SARUP Vs. MABDUL SAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of a lease. Defendant 2 is the owner of the property which consists of a quarry to be worked. He had granted a lease in favour of defendant 1 which was to expire at the e May, 1923. Another lease was executed by Pahlad Narain, professing to be the general attorney of the owner, on 10 April 1926, in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 10 years to come into effect from June 1928 on the expiry of the lease in favour of defendant 1.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that he had not obtained possession and accordingly sued to recover possession. Ho impleaded both the owner and the former lessee as defendants. On behalf of the defendants it was denied that any valid lease was executed by Pahlad Narain. On behalf of the owner it was urged that the alleged agent had no authority to grant any such lease. There was also a plea of want of notice under Section 10G. A few other pleas also were taken.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge framed no less than seven issues, but disposed of the case on his findings of fact on issues 1 and 2 only. The learned District Judge has come to a contrary conclusion on those points and has remanded the whole case.