LAWS(PVC)-1934-3-172

SHEO RAJ CHAMAR Vs. MUDEER KHAN

Decided On March 12, 1934
SHEO RAJ CHAMAR Appellant
V/S
MUDEER KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals Nos. 936 and 967, arise out of the same suit brought by the appellants to obtain a declaration that certain plots of land described by their numbers in the plaint were the occupancy holdings of the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no right to bury corpses therein, and to obtain an injunction and damages. The defence was that the defendants were concerned only with one of the several plots in suit, namely, with plot No. 770 and that they had been burying the dead bodies of members of their family on the plot for a very long time.

(2.) The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs had no cause of action in respect of plots other than the plot No. 770; that the defendants buried the dead persons of their family on the land plot No. 770 as mere licensees of the land- holder and plaintiffs, who claimed under the land-holder, and that therefore the defendants were not entitled to bury the dead bodies in future, as the plaintiffs objected to such a conduct on the defendants part. The Court accordingly dismissed the suit with respect to the plots other than plot No. 770 and granted an injunction against the defendants against burying the dead bodies in future. The rest of the claim was dismissed and the parties were directed to pay their own costs.

(3.) Both the parties appealed. The plaintiffs appeal was dismissed, the defendants was allowed and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court found that the defendants had been burying dead bodies in plot No. 770 for more than 30 years. The learned Judge however did not specify what rights under the law the defendants had acquired by burying for a long time dead-, bodies in plot No. 770. The plaintiffs have filed two appeals in view of the fact that there were two appeals in the Court below. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that at the most the defendants were licensees and they were not entitled to bury dead bodies in future. The defendants are three in number. They do not claim their right to bury dead bodies as a matter of custom enjoyed by their community at large; they confine the right claimed to themselves alone.