DEVJI ARJAN DALVADI Vs. BHOJA VAIJA KACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits filed by the plaintiffs, sharers in the talukdari village of Khas in the Dhandhuka Taluka, Ahmedabad District, against the defendants, who, they asserted, were their tenants-at-will. They claimed that they were entitled to recover possession of the suit lands leased out by them to the tenants, that they had issued legal notices to put an end to the tenancies, and that the tenants had disobeyed their notices. The principal appeal is second appeal No. 542 of 1931, with which I shall deal, and the decision of this appeal will govern all the rest.

(2.) The defendant in suit No. 716 of 1927, out of which second appeal No. 542 of 1931 arises, is Dalvadi Devji Arjan. He pleaded that he was the owner of the land in suit and not a tenant, and that the rent-note, on which the suit was based, had been obtained from him by coercion, undue influence, and misrepresentation. This rent-note (exhibit 46 at p. 51 of the paper book) was executed by the appellant on June 5, 1913, and given to the Mamlatdar, Dhandhuka, on behalf of the Talukdari Settlement Officer, who was managing the village of Khas on behalf of the talukdars, amongst whom the present respondents were numbered. In this rent- note Devji stated as follows :- I will neither mortgage nor sell this land but cultivate the same as a farmer of the talukdari village of Khas, so long as at the will of the talukdar of Khas village or their managers (sic.) and will deliver possession of the same when asked to do so without any objection.

(3.) The suit was based on breach of the terms of this rent-note inasmuch as the plaintiffs-respondents claimed that they asked the defendant Dalvadi Devji Arjan to give up the land and he had refused to do so. The trial Court held that neither coercion nor misrepresentation had been proved and that the appellant had not acquired a permanent occupancy right, and accordingly made a decree for possession. On appeal, the learned District Judge came to the same conclusion. In this Court the appellant is bound by the adverse finding of fact on the first issue that there had been neither coercion nor misrepresentation, and that the lease was not voidable on that account.