(1.) THE father of Mt. Chhoti, a Gond, was the occupancy tenant of the fields in suit. He died about 1918. In the jamabandis for the subsequent years Mt. Chhoti was shown as tenant through her guardian Anupi. In 1923 Mt. Patoli, the mother of Mt. Chhoti, executed as guardian of Mt. Chhoti a surrender of the fields. The defendant malguzar obtained possession, but proceedings were taken Under Section 100, C.P. Tenancy Act, in the Revenue Courts, The Tahsildar reinstated Mt. Chhoti and his decision was upheld in first appeal but was reversed on second appeal and Mt. Chhoti again lost possession on 31st July 1924. The suit was filed on 19th February 1926 and the main defence was that it was barred by time as its was filed more than two years from the date of the dispossession following the execution of the surrender deed. The suit succeeded in the lower Courts.
(2.) IT is urged before me that, as the plaintiff regained possession under an erroneous order, her Subsequent suit to recover possession had to be filed within two years of the date of the original dispossession.
(3.) IT is next urged that Mt. Patoli's surrender put an end to the tenancy even if no consideration passed. The lower appellate Court has held that, in the absence of evidence regarding the law which the Gonds follow, it must be held that Mt. Chhoti's grandmother, who acted as her guardian, was her legal guardian. I disagree with this finding: in the absence of evidence it can be presumed that according to that law the mother is a preferential guardian to the grandmother, although the grandmother was acting as guardian. Mt. Patoli's surrender, however, purported to be made for a consideration of Rs. 600 and it has been held that this consideration has not been proved to have passed. The transaction was not effected with a view to further the interests of the minor and cannot take away the rights of the minor. This ground, therefore, fails.