SETH BEHARI LAL Vs. AMIN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of the site of a house. The claim was disputed on the ground of adverse possession. It has been found that the plaintiff is the owner of the site. It has also been found that the defendant's predecessor-in-interest occupied the land in 1885 under an agreement which allowed him to build a house on it but required him to vacate it and remove the materials when asked to do so by the owner. It is further found that from that time ground-rent has been regularly paid and that the appellant, when he bought the house knew of the plaintiff's rights, that is, he knew that the site belonged to the plaintiff and that his vendor had no transferable interest in it.

(2.) Two pleas are taken in the grounds of appeal: 1. That no decree for ejectment should have been given but only a decree for arrears of rent. 2. That the lease or counterpart executed by the defendant's predecessor required registration.

(3.) The first plea has not been seriously pressed. On the facts found the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment.