CHUNNIALAL Vs. DEORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-applicant brought a suit for possession of an abadi site on the ground that the defendants transferors had a non-transferable licence in respect of the same and the defendants could not acquire the site without the consent of the plaintiff lambardar. The defence was that the plaintiff's consent as lambardar was obtained, and in the alternative it was pleaded that as, the defendants were co-sharers in the village no consent was required and that Section 203, C.P. Land Revenue Act did not apply for a transfer in favour of a co-sharer.

(2.) THE trial Court negatived both the defences and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants appealed and again urged the same two defences. The lower appellate Court in its decision negatived the two defences. During the hearing of the appeal an application was filed by the defendants for permission to amend the defence and to withdraw the pleas that were raised in the trial Court. The lower appellate Court permitted the defendants to withdraw the pleas taken in the trial Court and to set up a defence that the transferors were owners of the house prior to the first settlement and therefore not licencees but proprietors and as such were entitled to transfer the site without reference to the lambardar. As this involved a fresh trial the case was remanded to the trial Court. The plaintiff-applicant feeling himself aggrieved by this decision comes up in revision.

(3.) READING the written statement of the defendants in the Court below I find that they pleaded that Section 203, Land Revenue Act was not applicable as it was a transfer in favour of co-sharers. It was thus a very specific plea, and if they now want to say that it is not applicable because of different circumstances altogether, they are raising a new defence.