SURTA Vs. DALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the revenue Court under Section 58(a) read with Section 34, Agra Tenancy Act (Act-2 of 1901). The plaintiffs case was that they were the occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute and the defendants were "the sub- tenants without the consent of the plaintiffs" and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment of the defendant. In substance the plaintiffs case was that the defendants had taken possession of their occupancy holding without their consent, and the plaintiffs were entitled, in view of the provisions of Section 34, Agra Tenancy Act, to treat them as tenants and to claim a decree for their ejectment. The defence to the suit was that the relationship of landholder and tenant did not exist between the.parties, and that the defendants were in possession as zemindars and the plots in dispute were their khudkasht. It was further alleged by the defendants that, even if the plaintiffs had occupancy rights in the plots in dispute, those rights were extinguished because the defendants had been in possession for a period of more than six months.

(2.) It is common ground that the plaintiffs have also acquired some zamindari share in the mahal in which the holding in dispute is situated. It is also admitted that one of the defendants, namely Surta, is the lambardar of the mahal, and the other defendant Suba is one of the cosharers. The trial Court held that the relationship of landholder and tenant did not subsist between the parties, and that plots in dispute were the khudkasht of the defendants and the plaintiffs having failed to bring a suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act, within six months of the date of dispossession by the defendants, the suit was time barred. On these findings that Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has held that Surta dispossessed the plaintiffs from the holding in dispute not as lambardar, but "in his private capacity" and as the two defendants were only some of the co-sharers of the mahal, Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act, had no application to the case. In support of this conclusion the lower appellate Court relied on the case of Chhedda V/s. Achha Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 572. The view of law taken by the learned Judge is borne out by the decision quoted by him. Whatever may be my own View on the subject, I am bound by the ruling noted above, which is a case decided by a Division Bench of this Court,