Skip to content


Mata Ghulam Vs. Sheo Mangal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All460; 84Ind.Cas.639
AppellantMata Ghulam
RespondentSheo Mangal and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - purchase by tenant of fractional share in village--tenancy, whether terminated--co-sharer by purchase, whether can oust tenant. - - 2. the court below found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the proprietor of the lands in suit......co-sharers in the village by virtue of their purchase of certain fractional shares but the plots in suit were held from before those purchases by dwarka, the father of the defendants as a tenant from as far back as 30 years. the purchase by the defendants of a fractional share in the village did not terminate their tenancy of the said plots, in succession to dwarka any more than the purchase of a fractional share by the plaintiff gave him a right to oust the defendants from that tenancy. they are co-sharers in the village and the plaintiff may have a right to sue for partition in which the proprietary right to the soil of the plots in dispute may be allotted to one party or another; but the tenancy itself would not be affected by that partition and would form a distinct entity by.....
Judgment:

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. The question for consideration in this suit was whether the plaintiff was the proprietor of the plots in dispute. The defendants claimed to hold the same as occupancy tenants and alleged that the plaintiff was in cultivatory possession thereof as a sub-tenant on their behalf.

2. The Court below found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the proprietor of the lands in suit. Both the parties are admittedly co-sharers in the village by virtue of their purchase of certain fractional shares but the plots in suit were held from before those purchases by Dwarka, the father of the defendants as a tenant from as far back as 30 years. The purchase by the defendants of a fractional share in the village did not terminate their tenancy of the said plots, in succession to Dwarka any more than the purchase of a fractional share by the plaintiff gave him a right to oust the defendants from that tenancy. They are co-sharers in the village and the plaintiff may have a right to sue for partition in which the proprietary right to the soil of the plots in dispute may be allotted to one party or another; but the tenancy itself would not be affected by that partition and would form a distinct entity by itself. The Courts below were, therefore, right in holding that the plaintiff did not occupy the disputed plots as proprietor notwithstanding his co-sharer-ship in village. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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