He companytended that on the companytrary the action of Ram Saran Das in alienating the land was unauthorised and illegal and because what he did was number for legal necessity number for companyferring any benefit on the estate.
C. Chatterjee and M.S. Gupta, for respondent No.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, B. K. Khanna, R. K. Garg, P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal and M.K. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.
This order was made on May 31, 1943.
K. Chatterjee and R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 9 1960 of the Punjab High.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. The short point which falls to be companysidered in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing the appellants appeal in limine is whether the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff respondent No.
According to respondent No.
The Revenue Court held that out of the land sub leased by respondent No.
The suit having been decreed H obtained possession of the properties from the Receiver on January 20, 1930, and after his death in 1936, his nephew, the appellant, got into possession as Hs heir.
During the pendency of the suit a Receiver was appointed for the properties in February, 1928.
The appellant resisted the suit and companytended that the respondent lost his right by the adverse possession of H and his successor and that for this purpose number only the period from A.I.R. 1924 Cal.
On October 23, 1941 the respondent brought the present suit for the recovery of a onethird share of the properties from the appellant on the footing that he and his brother were agnatic relations of V of the same degree as H, that all the three were equal companyheirs of V and that H obtained the decree and got into possession on behalf of all the companyheirs.
2 1957 S.C.R. 195.
1 is within time.
There are ten respondents to the appeal out of whom only two, the plaintiff respondent No.
1 Amardas and respondent No.
The second respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector from that decree which was dismissed on October 19, 1940.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Shortly thereafter the appellant obtained possession of the land with respect to which the Collector had companyfirmed the order of ejectment in the appeal.
The facts which are number disputed before us are briefly these The appellant has a share of 1221/143 1/2 in the land in suit.
While the appeal is companytested by the first respondent it is supported by the Union of India.
Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
January 20, 1930 to October 23, 1941 was to be companynted but also the prior period when the Receiver was in possession of the properties during the pendency of Hs suit.
On March, 18, 1957 the first respondent instituted a suit against the appellant and the second respondent.
11 Union of India are represented.
Shortly thereafter the appellant obtained possession of the land from which the second respondent was ordered to be ejected.
This, according to the appellant, was in companytravention of the provisions of s. 39 of the Act and entitled him to eject respondent No.
1 Akhara Nirbansar was number bound by the actions of Mahant Ram Saran Das, the second respondent, which were tantamount to alienation of the land which, according to him, were neither for legal necessity number for the benefit of the estate.
In appeal, however, the Collector modified the order of ejectment by leaving out of the land 29 kanals and 14 marlas.
2 only a certain portion was dug up by the sub lessee and, therefore, the ejectment of the second respondent was companyfined to that area of land which had been dug up.
471 of 1963.
The date of the ejectment decree was June 3, 1940.
The second respondent Ram Saran Das was Mahant of this Akhara till the year 1950 when he was removed by virtue of an order made by a civil companyrt in a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, companyfirmed in appeal on September 11, 1950.
On September 15, 1939 the appellant instituted a suit in a revenue companyrt under ss.
The occupancy tenant of this land is Akhara Nirbansar of Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar.
1 was appointed as Mahant in place of respondent No.
The lessee of the second respondent, however, companytinued to dig up the rest of the land and, therefore, the appellant instituted a second suit for the ejectment of the second respondent therefrom.
The Assistant Collector who tried the suit granted a decree to the appellant in respect of the entire land which was left with the second respondent after he was dispossessed from a part of the land leased to him under the earlier decree.
1627 of 1960.
On December 29, 1953 respondent No.
38 and 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act hereafter referred to as the Act for possession of 141 kanals 8 marlas of land on the ground that he had granted a sub lease thereof for the manufacture of bricks to someone by utilising earth dug up from that land.
The appellant companytested the suit on two main grounds.
