SYED ZAHUR HASAN Vs. MTSHAKER BANOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to a plot of land situated in Jhansi which was at one time occupied by a house belonging to Muhammad Zahur. Muhammad Zahur was a ryot. The zemindari rights of his father in the village were, it is said, sold some time before 1882. Muhammad Zahur worked as a karinda of his father- in-law, who hada zemindari share in Busgit; his wife and children lived in Busgit, while he kept up his connection with Jhansi. He died in 1887. The house in question fell into ruins some time afterwards and the question for consideration in this case is whether the defendants, who are the heirs of Muhammad Zahur, had abandoned the house after the death of Muhammad Zahur and allowed it to fall into ruins so as to entitle the zemindar, namely the defendant No. 9, to resume the land on which the said house stood and grant the right of occupancy thereof to the present plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent owns a house adjacent to the land in dispute and her allegation is that license to build a house on the land so abandoned was granted to her by the defendant No. 9 in September 1919. She complains that when she wanted to build a house on the said land the defendants- appellants interfered and prevented her from making constructions over the same. It is also said that the said defendants then hurriedly collected some materials and built certain walls and a room in order to keep the plaintiff out of the enjoyment of that site.

(2.) The defendants deny having abandoned the site. The Court of first instance found in their favour, but the lower Appellate Court held otherwise.

(3.) The question at issue is really one of fact depending very largely on the evidence of intention afforded by the conduct of the plaintiffs since 1887.