NANHE Vs. GANDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed this suit for possession of an abadi site used as bari against the defendants who own another patti in the same village. The defendant stated that they have been in possession of the plot for the last 40 years, and that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by time. The trial Court found that 1st April 1925 was the date from which the partition order was to take effect and that the plot in suit was allotted to the plaintiffs, and, therefore decreed plaintiffs' claim. The defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed.

(2.) THE first point which is urged on behalf of the appellants is that the lower appellate Court has not properly construed Ex. P-2, the order of the partitioning officer, in holding that the previous possession of the respective cosharers over abadi was disturbed. It is clear from the order that the abadi land was divided and it is admitted by the defendants that the land in suit fell into plaintiffs' patti. The interpretation which has been put by the lower appellate Court on the order as contained in Ex. P-2 that the possession of the abadi land will be given to the cosharer in whose patti it falls, seems to be correct.

(3.) LAND Eevenue Act, and the said Act contains no provision that the civil Court is precluded from trying a suit of the nature of this suit. The suit could be entertained in the civil Courts and they have jurisdiction to try such such suits.