Skip to content


Gulab Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.577
AppellantGulab
RespondentBhagwan Das and ors.
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 4 - land taken for planting grove, whether holding--rights of grove-holder, whether, transferable. - - the finding of the court clearly shows that this plot was neither let nor held for agricultural purposes, but that it was let for the planting of a grove and a grove exists on it and it is incapable of cultivation......this appeal. in section & of the agra tenancy act 'holding' is defined as a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure or one lease or engagement and the word lease is defined as land which is let or held for agricultural purposes. the finding of the court clearly shows that this plot was neither let nor held for agricultural purposes, but that it was let for the planting of a grove and a grove exists on it and it is incapable of cultivation. the plot, therefore, is neither land within the meaning of the act nor a holding. there can, therefore, be no bar to the transferability of the rights of the defendants. vide the case of jalesar sahu v. raj mangal 63 ind. cas. 437 : 19 a.l.j. 616 : 43 a. 606. the finding of the court below that, under the circumstances, the rights are.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff is the zemindar and his allegation was that the defendants were non-occupancy tenants of the land on which some trees stood, and they had wrongly transferred them. The lower Appellate Court has found that the land had been taken from the zemindar for planting a grove on payment of a nazrana. The grove was thickly planted and was planted about the time when the land was taken. It has been in existence for 32 years, and in its present condition is incapable of cultivation. It accordingly found that defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were not non-occupancy tenants of any holding, but had the rights of grove-holders on this plot. This finding is fatal to this appeal. In section & of the Agra Tenancy Act 'holding' is defined as a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure or one lease or engagement and the word lease is defined as land which is let or held for agricultural purposes. The finding of the Court clearly shows that this plot was neither let nor held for agricultural purposes, but that it was let for the planting of a grove and a grove exists on it and it is incapable of cultivation. The plot, therefore, is neither land within the meaning of the Act nor a holding. There can, therefore, be no bar to the transferability of the rights of the defendants. Vide the case of Jalesar Sahu v. Raj Mangal 63 Ind. Cas. 437 : 19 A.L.J. 616 : 43 A. 606. The finding of the Court below that, under the circumstances, the rights are tranferable cannot be impugned.

2. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ganga Dei v. Badam 5 A.L.J. 99 : 3 M.L.T. 194 : A.W.N. (1908) 51 : 30 A. 134, and the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833. Both these cases, however, are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases trees had been planted on agricultural holdings which had existed from before. When the holdings themselves were not transferable, they could not become transferable, after the planting of trees. I dismiss the appeal with costs.


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