Skip to content


Jugal Kishore Vs. Musammat Gomti Kuar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All479; 25Ind.Cas.280
AppellantJugal Kishore
RespondentMusammat Gomti Kuar
Cases ReferredGanap v. Subbi
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow's estate--permission given by widow to plant grove, whether binding on reversioner--pleadings-relief. - - in the present case it was distinctly stated in the plaint that the defendant had appropriated fruit of some of the trees of the groves and had instigated some of the tenants not to pay rents to the plaintiff. both parties understood perfectly well the point in dispute and gave evidence accordingly. the appeal of musammat gomti kuar must also fail......grove-holder and hence the suit was not maintainable in a civil court. during the pendency of the suit musammat gomti kuar filed an application stating that she was the real purchaser and that beni lal and ramcharan lal were benamidars. she was accordingly brought on the record as plaintiff. the learned munsif found that the land in suit was given by musammat dhanwanti to her husband ram prasad, and his nephew, jugal kishore, at different times for the planting of groves and that two groves were planted on it by thorn. the grant by her of the land in suit could not be questioned as the planting of groves improved the property. the plaintiff or her vendors never having obtained possession over the' groves or the land, the acts of the defendant referred to in the plaint could not amount.....
Judgment:

Rafique, J.

1. The two appeals Nos. 1135 and 1529 of 1913 arise out of a suit brought by Musammat Gomti Kuar against Jugal Kishore. It appears that one Mulchand was a co-sharer in the villages of Mehdi, Husanpur and Dinarpur. He died some time ago leaving him surviving his widow called Musammat Plaunda and a daughter 'named Musammat Dhanwanti. Musammat Plaunda remained in possession of her husband's property up to her death. On her death Musammat Dhanwanti entered in possession and remained in possession till her death in 1907. After her death Khader Mal and Shama Charan succeeded to the estate of Mulchand as his reversioners. They executed a deed of sale in favour of Beni Lal and Ramcharan Lal in respect of the estate of Mulchand. On the 27th of March 1911 the purchasers instituted the suit out of which these two appeals have arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Aoula Faridpur against Jugal Kishore. It was alleged in the plaint that Jugal Kishore used to realize rents of Mehdi, Hasanpur and Dinarpur on behalf of Musammat Dhanwanti and that during the time that he was acting for her, he without her knowledge and without any right got his name entered in respect of 25 bighas 8 biswas of land. But inspite of that entry Musammat Dhanwanti remained in possession of the land until her death. In April 1907 the plaintiffs, after the purchase of the interests of Khader Mal and Shama Charan got possession of the estate of Mulchand in Mehdi, Hasanpur and Dinarpur, including the land in question. The defendant subsequently interfered with the plaintiffs' title and possession by taking fruit from some of the trees of the groves situate on the land in suit and by instigating some of the tenants not to pay rent to the plaintiffs. The latter, therefore, claimed two reliefs, viz., (1) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the title and the possession of the plaintiffs and (2) if the acts of the defendant mentioned above be considered to amount to dispossession of the plaintiffs, then a decree for possession of the land in suit by the ejectment of the defendant. Jugal Kishore contested the suit on various grounds. He denied that the land in suit was sold by the, reversioners to the plaintiffs or that the latter had ever been in possession of it He said that the grove No. 2036 belonged to him and that ho had been in possession of it for a number of years. As to the other grove he said that ho had planted it with the permission of Musammat Dhanwanti and Musammat Mohan Kuar, another co-sharer. He pleaded that he was a tenant grove-holder and hence the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit Musammat Gomti Kuar filed an application stating that she was the real purchaser and that Beni Lal and Ramcharan Lal were benamidars. She was accordingly brought on the record as plaintiff. The learned Munsif found that the land in suit was given by Musammat Dhanwanti to her husband Ram Prasad, and his nephew, Jugal Kishore, at different times for the planting of groves and that two groves were planted on it by thorn. The grant by her of the land in suit could not be questioned as the planting of groves improved the property. The plaintiff or her vendors never having obtained possession over the' groves or the land, the acts of the defendant referred to in the plaint could not amount to the dispossession of the plaintiff. The latter was not, therefore, entitled to either of the two reliefs asked by her. The claim was accordingly dismissed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the Munsif. He held that Musammat Dhanwanti Kuar having a life-estate only could not deal with the property so as to effect adversely the rights of the reversioners. She had reserved no rent on the land given to the defendant and his uncle for planting of the groves and hence the reversioners' rights were injuriously affected. The finding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action for recovery of possession was also not accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge. He decreed the claim for possession with the permission to the defendant to remove groves and such trees as bore no fruit. Both Jugal Kishore and Musammat Gomti Kuar have filed separate appeals in this Court. The appeal of the latter relates to the qualification in the decree permitting Jugal Kishore to remove grass and timber, while Jugal Kishore has appealed from the decree for possession passed against him.

2. This is the appeal for Jugal Kishore.. He attacks the decree on three grounds viz. : (1) that the plaintiff made no specific assertion in the plaint that she had been dispossessed and if so, at what date, or that she had ever been in possession over the land in suit, (2) that the facts stated in the plaint have been found to be untrue, and (3) that Musammat Dhanwanti Kuar could grant land to the defendant and his uncles to plant groves and that such a grant is binding on the reversioners of Mulchand. In support of the first contention the case of Kashi Nath Biswas v. Ram Narinjan Chaube A.W.N. (1902) 35 is relied upon. I do not think that the case of Kashi Nath is in point. In that case the plaintiff made no specific assertion that he had been dispossessed or, if so, at what date had such dispossession taken place. In the present case it was distinctly stated in the plaint that the defendant had appropriated fruit of some of the trees of the groves and had instigated some of the tenants not to pay rents to the plaintiff. That was a specific assertion of dispossession of the plaintiff. The argument in support of the second contention is that the plaintiff has come into Court on the allegation that Jugal Kishore fraudulently got his name entered in the revenue registers in respect of the land in suit without the consent and knowledge of Musammat Dhanwanti and taking advantage of that entry was interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The lower Court has found that allegation to be untrue. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to no relief. It seems that the pleadings subsequent to the filing of the plaint disclosed the true circumstances under which the land in suit came to be in the possession of the defendant. The issue between the parties on the pleadings in the case was the right of the plaintiff to recover possession of the land in suit or. to put it differently, whether the grant of the land in suit to Ram Prasad and Jugal Kishore for planting of groves by Musammat Dhanwanti Kuar who held a life-estate only, was binding on the reversioners of her father. Both parties understood perfectly well the point in dispute and gave evidence accordingly. It is immaterial that the pleading subsequent to the filing of the plaint and the evidence in the cases disclosed facts at variance with those men- tioned in the plaint. The defendant was not placed at a disadvantage as he knew the real issue in the case. The plaintiff can, in my opinion, be granted the relief for possession. This view is supported by two Full Bench cases of this Court, vide Abdul Ghani v. Musammat Babui 25 A. 256 (F.B.) : A.W.N. (1903) 18 and Balmakund v. Dalu 25 A. 498 (F.B.) : A.W.N. (1903) 112.

3. The third contention for the defendant has also no force. It is not denied that Musammat Dhanwanti had only a life-estate in the land in suit. She could not deal with it to the injury of the reversioners' interests. No rent was fixed for the land on which the groves in question were planted. The reversioners lost the rent which the land in suit could fetch. They are, therefore, not bound by the permission of Musammat Dhanwanti. In support of the view that such permission is of no avail against the reversioners, reference may be made to the case of Ganap v. Subbi 32 B. 577 : 10 Bom. L.R. 927. The appeal of Jugal Kishore, therefore, fails. The appeal of Musammat Gomti Kuar must also fail. It has not been shown that she has a right to retain the grass and timber trees grown by the defendant. This appeal is dismissed with costs.


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