KARIMULLAKHAN S/O. MOHD. ISHAQKHAN Vs. BHANUPRATAPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, now respondent, has obtained a decree for possession of two villages, namely, Phulwari Khurd and Phulwari Kalan and for thekajama of these two villages to the extent of Rs. 378 for the years 1936-37, 1937-38 and .1938-39 A.D. in both the lower Courts, and this appeal has been preferred by the defendants (appellants before me) against that decree. Those two villages are a part of the Suarmar Estate situate in the Raipur district of which the plaintiff is the present holder. These villages were granted to the defendants on a perpetual lease by the late zamindar Thakur Lal Giriraj Singh, who was the plaintiff's father, by an unregistered lease deed dated 23rd September 1926 on a thekajama of Rs. 126 per year. The plaintiff's father died on 4th February 1930 and upon his death the plaintiff succeeded to the zamindari. He served the defendants with a notice, dated 7th January 1933, to quit, and filed a suit civil suit No. 61A of 1938) for ejectment but that suit was dismissed on 1st September 1938 on the ground of waiver: (vide Ex. p-1). Thereupon the plaintiff again served another notice dated 10th November 1938 on the defendants asking them to quit the villages now in dispute, find launched this suit for ejectment and for mesne profits.

(2.) THE only points which have been debated at the bar are these : (i) whether Suarmar zamindari of which the two villages form a part is impartible and inalienable; and (ii) whether the defendants have acquired permanent tenancy rights by prescription.

(3.) IT has been contended by Shri R.K. Rao appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that this wajib-ul-arz was prepared and the settlement was made under the provisions of Section 78, Land Revenue Act, and under the Settlement Instruction No. 1 of para. 2 cited at p. 338 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act by Kathalay.