MOHMAD ABDUL RAHIM Vs. PARASHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The judgment in this appeal will govern the disposal of F.A. No. 8-B of 1925, Mahomed Abdul Rahim v. Narain, as these two appeals have been argued together before me. The way in which the matter has been treated by the lower Court has rendered the position of the parties complicated. A decree for partition was transferred to the Collector and he divided certain fields allotting one-third share to Mt. Jahurunnissa Begum, the judgment-debtor', and two-thirds share to Abdul Rahim, the decree-holder. Narain held possession of three of the fields end Parashram of the remaining two as tenants of Jahurunnissa Begum. On the application of Abdul Rahim. the Collector gave him possession of two-thirds share of this field with the standing crops. The tenants applied for restoration of possession and return of the crops. They urged that the leases had been granted before the partition suit commenced and their applications were clearly made under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C.

(2.) MR . Pande, the Judge who dealt with those applications, did not decide whether the lease has been granted before the date of the partition suit or not. He held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding the standing crops. He dismissed the applications for restoration of possession but passed an order that the applicants were entitled to the crop of the fields or the price thereof.

(3.) THE finding of the learned Judge regarding the award of the Collector appears to be incorrect but this could have been set right had it been made clear under what provisions of the law the order was passed and how persons aggrieved by that order could challenge it. The applicants subsequently made applications for recovery of the value of the standing crops. The learned Judge who considered these applications treated them as requests that the Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P.C. It was held that the non-applicant could not question the former decision that the applicants had a right to claim the value of the crops. Evidence was taken regarding this value and decrees were passed directing the applicant to pay certain sums.