THAKUR MOORATSINGH Vs. MUNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaint alleges that one Bhurey, tenant of a holding in the patti of which plaintiff 1 is the lambardar, surrendered his holding on 19th June 1924. The plaintiffs began to plough the fields but were ousted by the defendant who had been in possession as sub-tenant of Bhurey in the previous year. They sued therefore to eject the defendant. The defence was that the defendant had been holding under the plaintiff lambardar for a number of years and that Bhurey had no right in the fields at the date of surrender.

(2.) THE first Court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were true and passed a decree for possession. In first appeal it was held that as the deed of surrender was executed on 19th June 1924, the plaintiffs had no title to possession of the fields during the agricultural year 1924-25. The other points raised in first appeal were not decided.

(3.) IN the next place, when a landlord sues to eject a trespasser from a tenancy holding, it is not open to the defendant, who is not a transferee from the tenant and does not hold under the tenant, to plead that the tenant has not abandoned the holding; Sahasram v. Sheonath [1915] 11 N.L.R. 124.