RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. JANKI PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the value of this appeal is only Rs. 3, it involves a question of principle of some importance. The suit was one for ejectment in the Revenue Court under Section 58 read with Section 34 of the Agra Tenancy Act. Section 34 was not specifically pleaded, but the suit was clearly brought in reliance on that section as no specific contract of tenancy between the parties was either alleged in the plaint or proved.

(2.) The real question in dispute is whether She land is or is not the plaintiff's sir. If it is his sir, he is entitled to treat the defendant as his tenant and to eject him under Section 34, the defendant having occupied the land without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff's father Lohari Singh was one of four brothers who were proprietors and joint sir holders of a sir khata. The three brothers other than Lohari Singh sold their rights to the defendant. The three brothers thereby obtained ox-proprietary rights in a proportionate portion of the holding under Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, and proceedings were duly taken under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act to demarcate the area in which these rights arose. The remaining portion of the holding continued to be sir under the definition contained in Section 4(12) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Under the first proviso to the section so much of the holding as became the subject of ex-proprietary tenancy ceased to be sir, but the portion of the holding in which no such rights arose clearly continued to be sir under the definition. The plot in dispute, No. 876, was a portion of the area which continued to be sir.

(3.) The question is whether it became a joint sir of the purchaser and of the plaintiff's father, or whether the sir rights vested exclusively in the plaintiff's father, whose share was not sold. So far as the proprietary right is concerned, the purchaser became jointly entitled to it, as the holding was undivided. This is not disputed. But sir rights, though they can only be held by a proprietor,are something beyond and apart from the mere proprietary right. The right of a sir- holder is a right to exclusive possession coupled with the fact that no parson cultivating under him can acquire occupancy rights. In a joint undivided village each proprietor may have his own separate sir although the proprietary rights in the whole village are joint.