ABDUL KARIM Vs. LUTUDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOST , if not all, of the difficult questions discussed at length in both Courts would have been seen not to arise if the facts had been properly ...examined. In 1916 the defendant, Lutu dhar, gave the plaintiff, Muhamad Abdul, Karim, a lease of a forest of which the term was to expire on the 23rd August 1921. In 1918 Lutudhar filed a suit, alleging that the lessee had broken the contract in various ways, and claiming damages and cancellation of the lease; and he ousted Abdul Karim from possession of the forest on the 24th June 1918 by obtaining a temporary injunction from the Court in that suit. Both reliefs claimed were granted by the first Court, but in appeal to the Court of the District Judge the claim for damages only was granted, with a modification of the amount to be paid, and that for cancellation of the lease was rejected. This was on the 5th September 1919.

(2.) ON the 4th November 1921 Abdul Karim made an application to the Court under Section 144, Civil P.C., claiming to be restored to possession of the property and to be paid mesne profits for the period during which he had been kept out of possession. He seems to have waited for the decision of the appeals which were filed in this Court and were dismissed, though he was of course entitled to possession immediately after the decision of the appeal in the District Judge's Court.

(3.) ON the 22nd November 1923 Abdul Karim filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, claiming the profits that he would have got out of the lease during the year 1921-22, that is to say, the year beginning on the 23rd August 1921, which is the day on which the term of his lease ended That this fact passed unnoticed in the lower Court, and was not even mentioned in the argument of the appeal, can hardly be called extraordinary, though it ought to be impossible.