AHMED SAYED Vs. BASHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal, which arises out of a suit for possession over certain land by demolition of the constructions made thereon. Admittedly, the land belongs to the biradari of loharan of Nagiaa and, on 15 March 1945, the defendants had taken it for a period of three years from the panches of the biradari for making constructions thereon. On the same date, the defendant had executed a qabuliat in favour of the panches & and agreed thereunder to vacate the land on the expiry of the said period. He was entitled to make any constructions he liked; and he actually built a residential house over the land. He did not vacate the land after the expiry of the said period. Thereupon the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the panches of the biradari, instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs were the panches of the biradari. He claimed to be the licensee and pleaded estoppel and acquiescence. It was also contended on his behalf that the plaintiffs had not obtained the permission of the Court to sue on behalf of the biradari as required by Rule 8 of Order 1, Civil P.C., and they were not entitled to maintain the suit.

(2.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were not the duly appointed panches of the biradari and were not entitled to sue without complying with the provisions of Order 1, Rrule 8, Civil P.C., that the quabuliat was a fictitious document and the defendant was a licensee and the license could not be revoked; and that the suit was barred by the rule of estoppel.

(3.) On appeal the learned Civil Judge of Bijnor held that the plaintiffs were duly elected panches of the Uradari and that the qabuliat was binding on the defendant and in view of the terms contained therein, he was not entitled to retain possession over the land add must remote the constructions made by him. He did not enter into the question whether the suit was maintainable without complying with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. He decreed the suit and allowed the defendant one year's time to remove the constructions.