GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. RAM ANJORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is connected With S.A. No. 95 of 1923. The facts of the two cases out of which these connected appeals have arisen are practically the same.

(2.) An occupancy tenant Bagwanta Singh died before the year 1884. On his death, Bhagwan Singh, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, took possession of the holding. There was a litigation between him and the widow of Bhagwanta, Mt. Newasi, which ended in a compromise effected on the 17 of June 1884. By that compromise the widow really handed over the entire holding to Bagwan Singh. Later on, the daughter of Bhagwanta Singh brought a suit of her own, but it was held that the compromise held good during the lifetime of her mother. Mt. Newasi died in April 1910. Some time after, her daughter brought another suit to recover the holding, but she was again unsuccessful. After that suit had been dismissed, the two suits out of which these appeals have arisen were brought by co-sharers of the mahal against the descendants of Bhagwan Singh for obtaining joint possession over the holding Let it be mentioned here that Bhagwan Singh was and the respondents are also co-sharers in the village. The defence was that the respondents were co-sharers in the village and were in peaceful possession, and the plaintiff s, whose title to the land was not denied, were not entitled to obtain joint possession, though they might sue for partition, or for profits.

(3.) The Court of first instance gave a decree for joint possession, but it made it clear that that decree did not entitle the plaintiffs to obtain physical possession by ousting the respondents from any portion of the plaint land. Both the plaintiffs filed appeals. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard them found no reason to grant a decree for joint possession. He held that, although the learned Munsif had pointed out that the decree for joint possession did not really mean anything but a declaratory decree, yet, having regard to the peculiar features of the people of the district, it would be in the interest of the parties themselves not to grant an ambiguous decree but a pure declaratory decree. Evidently the learned Subordinate Judge means that as soon as the plaintiffs come to know that they have got a decree for joint possession, they would ignore the word "joint" and understand that they have been awarded possession to the extent of their share and would then use force to obtain actual physical possession on the spot.