1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Zemindar against an appellate decree dismissing her suit for demolition of a house and possession of a site.
2. The facts are that one Dwarka Das, who was a shop-keeper and also for a short time held an agricultural holding sold on 20th April, 1922, his house to the respondent-defendant. The respondent proceeded to erect a substantial pucca house at a cost of about Rs. 2.000, During this period the karinda of the zemindar did not make any objection to the transfer or the erection of the house. I agree with the lower Appellate Court that the circumstances indicate that the karinda must have had knowledge of the purchase and construction of the house. The lower Appellate Court has held that this amounts to an acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. Reference for the general proposition of the doctrine of acquiescence has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to two rulings of the English Courts, which merely lay down that there must be acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. For the circumstances of the present case the lower Appellate Court has referred to Raj Narain Mitter v. Budh Seni 27 A. 338 : 1 A.L.J. 673 : A.W.N. (1904) 240. That was a similar case in which acquiescence was found to exist on the part of the karinda of a minor plaintiff in the purchase of a house by the defendant and the erection during the period of two years of a pucca house on the site. The two Hon'ble Judges, who tried that case, differed. I agree with the lower Appellate Court in following the opinion of Aikman, J., that the action of the karinda does amount to acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff.
3. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with Costs.