KALLU Vs. PARBHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by Kallu find Karamat-ul-lah who were defendants in the Court of first instance. The plaintiff was one Parbhu Lal. The lower Appellate Court has found upon evidence certain matters to which 1 shall presently refer, and the learned Vakil who appeared for the appellants has more than once stated in his argument that he accepts the findings of fact as found by the lower Appellate Court. His contention is that the lower Appellate Court has drawn wrong inferences of law, and not that it has arrived at wrong findings of fact. It is admitted in the case that the appellants executed a kabuliat on the 4th of November 1909 in favour of the respondent and that that kabuliat was afterwards registered.

(2.) The findings of fact are that one Abdullah was co-sharer in the village, that the land in suit was Abdullah s sir land, that Abdullah s proprietary rights passed by sale to Ahmad Bux and that Ahmad Bux in turn transferred the rights, whatever they were, to the respondent. The result of all these transactions was that Abdullah became an ex-proprietary tenant of this land. After becoming ex- proprietary tenant Abdullah sub-let those tenant rights to the appellants. Later on the respondent ejected Abdullah on the 3rd of August 1909. With that ejectment of Abdullah went the tenant rights of the persons to whom Abdullah had sub-let them, i.e., the appellants. Three months after this had come and gone the appellants executed the kabuliat in favour of, the respondent. It is not easy at first sight to see how this position can he got out of but his arguments addressed to me have been very ingenious.

(3.) They are (1) that when Abdullah was ejected the tenant rights of Abdullah enured. In favour of all the co-sharers. The appellants were two of such co- sharers, I believe there were eight in all, and the tenants rights enured partly in favour of other co-sharers in the mahal. It is not easy to see what follows from this argument. The position laid down is unassailable; it amounts to this and no more, that the appellants by reason of being co-sharers of the whole mahal become co-sharers of the rights vested in Abdullah, nothing more.