Skip to content


Sheo NaraIn Vs. Rala Rao - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in69Ind.Cas.208
AppellantSheo Narain
RespondentRala Rao
Cases ReferredKhan v. Parshotham Narain
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 201 (3) - pre-sumption--hindu joint family. - .....1323, 1324 and 1325. the defendant pleaded in answer that he and his brother were members of a joint hindu family and that such a suit was not maintainable.2. the first court came to the conclusion that the parties were divided in status, and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for the periods in suit.3. on appeal the learned judge has come to the conclusion (bat the parties were joint in the year 1323 fasli and has dismissed the claim for profits for that year the names of the patties to the suit; are entered on a moiety 'share in each of we two mahals, and having regard to the view taken of section 201 (3) of the tenancy act by this court; the claim of the plaintiff, whore name was entered on a moiety of the property, ought to have been decreed. all that the learned judge.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal and the connected second appeal No. 24 of 192l arise out of suits for profits brought by the plaintiff-appellant against his brother, lambardar, defendant. The Baits were for profits of two mahali, for the years 1323, 1324 and 1325. The defendant pleaded in answer that he and his brother were members of a joint Hindu family and that such a suit was not maintainable.

2. The First Court came to the conclusion that the parties were divided in status, and decreed the claim of the plaintiff in part for the periods in suit.

3. On appeal the learned Judge has come to the conclusion (bat the parties were joint in the year 1323 Fasli and has dismissed the claim for profits for that year The names of the patties to the suit; are entered on a moiety 'share in each of We two mahals, and having regard to the view taken of Section 201 (3) of the Tenancy Act by this Court; the claim of the plaintiff, whore name was entered on a moiety of the property, ought to Have been decreed. All that the learned Judge says about this aspect of the case is that 'the irrebutable presumption of Section 201 (3) of the Tenancy Act ordinarily applicable under the decision of Waris AH Khan v. Parshotham Narain 6 Ind. Cas. 609 : 32 A. 427 : 7 A.L.J. 682 does not apply;' or, in other words, he seems to think that such a presumption is not to be applied in the case of a joint Hindu family, But he forgets that all that this presumption results in is to prevent persons from pleading that the family is a joint-Hindu family as against the entries in the khewat. So far as the Revenue Courts are concerned, these entries are deemed to be true records for the purpose of suits under. Chapter 11 of the said Act: In our opinion the decree of the lower. Appellate Court is based on a misapprehension of the effect of Section 201' of the Tenancy Act.

4. In cur view, the decree of the First Court was Correct and' has been wrongly interfered with. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.


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