BABURAO Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts of this case are sufficiently given in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. There is no force in this appeal. Both the lower Courts find that one out of two lambardars can bring a suit of this nature to recover a village site, and I agree with them. Ganpatrao v. Pandurang [1916] 12 N.L.R. 24 has been quoted, but that case refers to a case of one of two lambardars acting adversely to the interests of the other lambardar. I think in the present case the plaintiff could bring the suit. It is then contended that Govinda, the other lambardar, gave his consent to the auction-purchase by the present appellant. Both the lower Courts find that he did not. That is a finding of fact and there is nothing to vitiate it. Then, as to the question of the plaintiff standing by and acquiescing in the defendant's building, there is a finding of fact that the defendant did not build any chapri or wall as alleged. That being so, there could be no standing by or acquiescence. These are the only points argued. They fail and this appeal is dismissed with costs. Appellant will pay the respondent's costs.