NARAN SINGH Vs. BAIKUNTH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action in which the plaintiff claimed possession of a certain tabedari tenure from which he said he had been dispossessed by the defendant. The plaintiff succeeded in his action and on appeal the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) The case is one of those examples in which the parties appear not to have appreciated their remedy. The dispossession alleged against the defendant was that he cut earth from the bank of a tank which was the subject-matter of the tenure. That clearly would not give rise to an action for possession but to an action in trespass against the defendant in which the plaintiff would have recovered damages and in which the question of title would have been gone into as it has been gone into in the present action. To have a decree for possession is, as I have indicated, not an appropriate remedy.

(3.) However, the only question raised in this appeal is whether the defendant was entitled, as a member of the family, to claim an interest in the tenure. That is the case set up. As I understand the argument addressed to this Court on behalf of the appellant, it is that the tenure was in a form of raiyati interest which descended after the death of one of the holders to other members of the family by survivorship.