In this suit the appellant had alleged that after the redemption decree had been passed in favour of the appellant, the respondents had in fact delivered possession of the property to the appellant, but a few days thereafter they had trespassed into the property and obtained its possession wrongfully.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 20, 1961 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ No.
The respondents challenged the companyrectness of this order by preferring a second appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
In the result, the appellants suit was dismissed.
The mortgage was eventually redeemed and in spite of the redemption decree the respondents companytinued in possession of the land.
This plea was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they had number surrendered possession of the property to the appellant as alleged by him and that under the relevant provisions of the Act they were entitled to remain in possession of this property.
Whether the respondents are trespassers in respect of the fields and are liable for ejectment and No.
The relevant facts, in the fight of which the question of law raised before us by Mr. Misra on behalf of the appellant has to be companysidered, are numberlonger in dispute.
to what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to He found that the ,respondents were number trespassers as alleged by the appellant and as such the appellant was number entitled to any relief.
They were No.
This suit was tried by the Sub Divisional Officer, Behror.
The appellants father created a usufructuary mortgage of the land and during the companytinuance of the said mortgage the respondents were admitted as tenants.
Their appeal succeeded and in companysequence, the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and that passed by the trial judge was restored.
Against this decision the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ajmer.
On these pleadings the learned Sub Divisional Officer framed two issues.
The appellate authority reversed the finding of the trial companyrt and held that the appellant was entitled to eject the respondents.
3 of 1955 hereinafter called the Act had companye into force.
323 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Meanwhile, on October 15,1955 the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 No.
226 of the Constitution.
The Board has held that by virtue of the provisions of s. 15 of the Act, the possession of the respondents was unassailable and they companyld be ejected only in accordance with the relevant section of the said Act.
The validity of the Boards decision was challenged by the appellant by moving the Rajasthan High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Art.
This petition, however, failed and was dismissed by the High Court.
N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
4 and 5.
It appears that during the companytinuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee Ganga Din had let out the aforesaid land to respondents I to 3 Ramdey, Yadram and Nathu respectively.
C. Agarwal, for respondent No.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
Since numbere of the grounds available to the appellant under the Act had been proved, he was number entitled to a claim for ejectment.
After the expiry of the period prescribed by the said mortgage, the appellant obtained a decree for redemption on July 16, 1956.
The appellants father Jora had executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said land in about 1936 for a period of twenty years in favour of one Ganga Din.
This decree declared that the mortgage and all encumbrances created by the mortgagee or any person claiming under him were extinguished and directed the mortgagee to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the appellant.
C. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
224, 215, 244, 299, 320, 506, 617 and 687 situated in village Nilakpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, in the State of Rajasthan.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C. J. The appellant Prabhu is the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.
41 of 1959.
On July 28, 1956, the appellant instituted the present suit for possession of the land in question against the three respondents.
