Skip to content


K.B.H. Mohammad MohiuddIn Haidar Vs. Doori Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All441
AppellantK.B.H. Mohammad MohiuddIn Haidar
RespondentDoori Singh
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. this is letters patent appeal brought by the defendant against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in favour of the plaintiff. the plaintiff brought a suit in the revenue court under section 95, agra tenancy act (act 2 of 1901), for a declaration that he was an occupancy tenant of the defendant zamindar in succession to his uncle khiali in whose cultivation he shared. the court of first instance granted a declaration, and as a question of jurisdiction had been decided, the defendant appealed to the court of the district judge. the district judge reversed the decree and came to a finding in the following terms:it appears that the plaintiff did return to the village, but it is not proved whether he shared in the cultivation, or whether he was merely lending a.....
Judgment:

Bennet, J.

1. This is Letters Patent appeal brought by the defendant against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit in the revenue Court under Section 95, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901), for a declaration that he was an occupancy tenant of the defendant zamindar in succession to his uncle Khiali in whose cultivation he shared. The Court of first instance granted a declaration, and as a question of jurisdiction had been decided, the defendant appealed to the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge reversed the decree and came to a finding in the following terms:

It appears that the plaintiff did return to the village, but it is not proved whether he shared in the cultivation, or whether he was merely lending a helping hand to an elderly relation.

2. The evidence on the record was that the last occupancy tenant Kheali was an old man of 80 years and it was admitted by a witness for the defendant that over a year before his death, the plaintiff Doori Singh lived with Kheali. The caste of these people was Thakur and Kheali, partly from his caste and partly from his advanced age did not himself cultivate but directed his labourers. The patwari also gave evidence to the effect that he had seen the plaintiff assisting in looking after the crops, although he had not seen the plaintiff doing the manual work of cultivation. It appears to the learned single Judge of this Court that the finding of the District Judge was indefinite, as ha appeared to find that either one of two alternatives existed, and in the opinion of the learned single Judge of this Court, either of these alternatives would amount to the legal definition of sharing in the cultivation. That is, the assisting of his uncle at an advanced age in looking after his holding would amount to sharing in the cultivation. We see no reason to differ from that conclusion and accordingly we dismiss this Letters Patent appeal. No costs are allowed, as the plaintiff-respondent is not represented.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //