KALP NATH CHAND Vs. SAMAR DHUJ CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for a, declaration that he (the plaintiff) was the owner in possession of the plots of land described in the plaint and the trees thereon situated in Mauza Narainpur, Tappa Shahpur, and that the defendants had nothing, to do with them. The plaintiff s, case was that his predecessors-in-title were cosharens in the village and the land in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff's predecessors, in partition. The defendants have got their names entered in the revenue papers against the trees on the land in dispute.

(2.) According to the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff's grandfather and his brother had a share in the village. The plaintiff's grandfather's brother sold his share to Murli Manohar from whom it descended to his widow Mt. Param Jot Kuari. After the sale the village was partitioned and the disputed plots were allotted to the share of Mt. Param Jot Kauri. As the plots in dispute were behind the plaintiff's house, the plaintiff remained in their possession and planted trees on them. On 6 June 1929, the plaintiff obtained the plots in dispute by a deed of exchange executed by Mt. Param Jot Kuari. Thereafter the defendants, applied to the Revenue Court for the entry of their names as grove-holders and the Revenue Court allowed their application. The plaintiff brought this suit for declaration of his proprietary title after the order of the Revenue Court. The defendants contended that they were the owners of the land and the trees in dispute. They stated in Clause (d) of their additional statements: The plaintiff or his ancestors and the zamindars have nothing to do therewith; nor have they been ever in possession and enjoyment thereof. All the allegations made by the plaintiff to the contrary are evidently wrong and not correct. The contesting defendants are the- owners in possession of the land in dispute and the trees standing thereon as baghdars. The plaintiff has no right to take objection or bring a suit.

(3.) The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, agreed with the findings of the trial Court and, confirming the decree of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Both the Courts, have found concurrently in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the owner of the land and the trees and this finding was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.