PADARATH PATHAK Vs. JAGDEO PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession of plots 1021/7, 8, 9 and 10, and for Rs. 20 as mesne profits for 1329 and 1330 Faslis. Plaintiff and defendants are brothers. According to the plaintiff he separated from the family 30 or 35 years ago. After separation he obtained a lease from the Raja of Jaunpur of the land in dispute, and remained in exclusive possession of the land in suit. Some time towards the close of 1921, or the beginning of 1922, the Raja of Jaunpur sued the plaintiff for ejectment. The defendants were no parties to this suit. A compromise was arrived at on the 31 January 1922, and a fresh lease was granted to the plaintiff for a term of seven years from 1329 to 1335 Faslis on an enhanced rent. In July 1922, the defendants took forcible possession of the land and sowed paddy crop. Hence the suit for possession and damages

(2.) The defendants deny that the plaintiff separate from the family 30 or 35 years ago. They allege that the separation took place about the year 1914 or 1915, that the original lease was acquired from the Raja of Jaunpur about the year 1908 when the plaintiff was a member of a joint family with the defendants and was indeed the karta of the family, that the lease was taken for the benefit of the joint family and the profits of the lease-hold property were always thrown into the common chest, that notwithstanding separation the defendants remained in possession of portions of the property in dispute in this way, that plot 1021/8 was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the other plots fell to the share of the defendants, that the defendants contributed towards the costs of the ejectment suit against the plaintiff, and that the compromise was made and the second lease obtained not for the benefit of the_ plaintiff alone but of the parties to the present claim, that the defendants were the principal tenants of plots 1021/7, 8, 9 and 10, that they were in adverse possession of the said plots for more than 12 years and therefore the plaintiff's claim was time barred.

(3.) The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit. He found that the family was not joint either at the time of the acquisition of the first or the second lease. It is not clear what the exact findings are on questions of fact arising from the pleadings. Possibly he intended to find that the defendants were not in adverse possession. Possibly he intended to base the judgment upon the fact that the defendants having, had no community of interest with the plaintiff at the time of the acquisition of the two leases, these could not enure for the benefit of the defendants. The judgment of the Munsif is rather confused and the findings have not been set forth with clearness and precision. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the Munsif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.