TIKARAM Vs. SUKKA LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent, Sukka, sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Ramtek, for possession of three occupancy fields in Mauza Pipri of that Tahsil. The plaintiff's case was that one Narayan, who died in 1918, was the occupancy tenant of the fields in question and that they were inherited by his daughter, Mt. Soni, who, in 1925 surrendered them to the malguzar, and the latter, in turn, created, a tenancy in the plaintiff's favour. Defendants' case was that defendant 1 Tikaram was the divided brother of Narayan and that he and his son, defendant 2, succeeded to the fields as Narayan's heirs.

(2.) THE case was strenuously fought out in the lower Courts on the allegation that Mt. Soni was not the daughter of Narayan at all but was the daughter of his second wife Mt. Sita who had a previous husband also named Narayan. This point was found against the defendants in both Courts after a careful and minute examination of the evidence.

(3.) IT has been suggested on behalf of the appellant Tikaram, that, as he is in possession and is now on his defence, it is still open to him to urge that the transfer offends against Section 12, Tenancy Act and that the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed being thus based on a bad title. I do not think it is possible to allow this contention to prevail at this time of day in view of the definite finding arrived at by both the lower Courts that the tenancy has been proved independently of the so-called receipt (Ex. P-11). Under Sections 12 and 13, Tenancy Act, the transfer stands good until it has been set aside in the manner contemplated by the said provisions.