The two plaintiffs preferred two separate appeals and both the appeals were disposed of by the First Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Gonda as per his judgment dated September 1, 1958.
Hence these two appeals by special leave Both the original lessees have died and their heirs and legal representative are prosecuting these appeals.
Broadly stated, the learned Judge agreed with the findings of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeals.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 15th October, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Civil Appeals Nos.
The only plea put forward on behalf of the lessees worth noticing is that the lessees were in cultivatory possession during the year 1359 F and being number a person who has become a bhumidar sirdar, Adhivasi or Asami is entitled to all the rights of Adhivasis under U.P. Land Reforms Supplementary Act, 1952 1952 Act for short The trial companyrt dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs were Thekadars of the land and under sec.
The original plaintiffs carried the matter in .
282 283 of 1969.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed and a decree for possession was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
It was further held that as the lessees came into possession under Zamindars who had numberright to grant the lease possession of the lessees being thus unlawful against the plaintiffs, they companyld number have acquired the Adivasis rights.
12 of the U P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 1950 Act for short , they have become hereditary tenants and they were in possession of land on Ist April 1960.
Briefly stated the plaintiffs A case was that they were Thekadars and the Theka was taken for personally cultivating the land and therefore under sec.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by DESAI, J. These two appeals by special leave arise from two Suits filed by Barkatullah and Sahfiullah for possession of land more particularly set out at the foot of the plaint against the Zamindars and Prem Kumari and Noor Mohammad.
The averments made in para 4 of the plaint were number companytroverted specifically and it was merely stated that they are subject to additional pleas.
978/58 and 11 of 1959.
Two separate appeals were preferred, by the time the appeals came up for hearing, a statement was made that both the plaintiffs have companypromised the dispute inter Se and that the suit be treated as one and if the appeal is to be allowed, possession is to be given jointly to two appellants as against the respondents H The learned Judge disposed of both the appeals by companymon judgment reversing the decision of the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt holding that the plaintiffs had acquired the status of A hereditary tenants and were in possession on 1.5.1950 and, therefore, the Zamindars had numberright to dispossess the plaintiffs and induct the two lessees in possession.
Rangarajan, Mrs. S. Bagga and Uma Jain for the Appellants.
second appeal.
It was alleged that the Zamindars had numberright to lease the land after the plaintiffs became hereditary tenants yet Prem Kumari and Noor Mohammad took land on lease from Zamindars and entered possession after 1.4 1950.
12 of the 1950 Act have acquired rights of hereditary tenants but the lessees were in cultivatory possession in 1359 F and therefore have acquired the right of adhivasi.
On this short ground the plaintiffs sought possession of the land.
It was alleged that the lessees from the Zamindar had numberright to remain in possession as against hereditary tenants.
The defendants were the Zamindars and two lessees companytested the suit.
L. Hathi, P.C. Kupur, R.S. Mehta, O.P. Verma and S.N. Singh for the Respondents.
Thekanama was held to be defective on the question of Theka being given exclusively for personal cultivation.
