MT. RANIBAHU Vs. RAO NARAYANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Duragsingh was a tenant in the village where the house site in suit is situated, and had a house on that site. He died some years ago, and his widow Mt. Ranibahu became tenant of that holding. It has been found that Mt. Ranibahu has been for some years the mistress of one Dhokalsingh who has two houses in the village: she has a son four years old by him and has been living with him for over two years. Duragsingh's house has now fallen down and the malguzar sues for possession of the site on the ground that Mt. Ranibahu has permanently ceased to use this site for the purposes of a dwelling house. The first Court found that the house had fallen down from natural causes, such as, want of repairs, but held that Mt. Ranibahu had not permanently abandoned the site at the date of the suit. The decree of that Court allowed her eight months to build a house on the site and directed that if she failed to do so, the plaintiff should obtain possession. The lower appellate Court held that Mt. Ranibahu had abandoned the site on the date of the suit and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession.

(2.) THIS second appeal is filed by Mt. Ranibahu and Dhokalsingh. It is first urged that the reported ruling, Narayan v. Behari [1915] 11 N.L.R. 126, does not apply as Mt. Ranibahu had not on the date of the suit permanently ceased to use the site for the purposes of a dwelling house. This is an attack on a finding of fact and the learned Judge of first appeal has given proper reasons for his finding. Mt. Ranibahu left her house and allowed it to fall down for want of repairs. She and Dhokalsingh removed some of its materials. She and Dhokalsingh stated in the first Court that they were man and wife, and I see no reason to think that they are more likely to separate than a married couple. I agree then that Mt. Ranibahu had ceased to use the site for the purposes of a dwelling house.

(3.) IT is urged that Mt. Ranibahu is under this sub-section entitled to a site in the village abadi apart from the question whether she has any intention of living on that site. In my opinion the subsection means that each person described is entitled to a site of reasonable dimensions for his house, his house meaning his residence. Unless, then, there is an. intention to construct a house for a residence, there is no right to any site. To hold otherwise leads to obvious absurdities. "Every person" must include females (Ranibahu herself is a female) and it could not have been intended that a male and a female labourer married to each other should be entitled to claim two plots in the abadi. It follows that as Mt. Ranibahu does not intend to leave Dhokalsingh's house, she is not now entitled to a plot in the abadi.