Skip to content


Nathu and ors. Vs. Tulsi Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All434; 78Ind.Cas.316
AppellantNathu and ors.
RespondentTulsi Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
licensei - licensee erecting permanent structures in pursuance of license--ejectment. - - 'the constructions in suit consist only of an outer wall enolosing a space of land in which are a kacha well and 3 hands. the well appears to have been built in 1913. but it appears to be a fact that the defendants-respondents have been using the land for many years for' manure for pressing sugar-cane and other agricultural purposes. this decree, if put into execution, will effectively hamper the defendants-appellants in the use of the land for if the plaintiffs-respondents get joint possession over the compound its value will be diminished if not destroyed......years before the suit. the distriot judge on appeal decreed the suit, but the high court in second appeal dismissed it. the judgment of the high court is in second appeal no. 797 of 1916 and is dated 12th july 1917. piyare das and rangi lal were proforma defendants in that suit. now, it appears that on the 22nd august 1913 pyare das and rangi lal had sold rights in the compound in question to tulshi ram and others, the plaintiffs-respondents in the present suit, and by virtue of the sale deed in their favour these plaintiffs-respondents have instituted an exaotly similar suit against the defendants-appellants for their ejectment out of the same compound. the present appeal arises out of that suit. the munsif, adopting the view that the plaintiffs-respondents had no right, dismissed the.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. The defendants-appellants are residents of a village called Chibli in the Farrukhabad District.

2. It appears, as far as I can ascertain, that the Zemindars of this village were a certain Nawab Shams-ul-nissa Begam, Baba Piyare Das, Rangi Lal and some others. In 1914 Nawab Shams-ul-nissa Begam brought a suit against the defendants-appellants in which she asked for their ejectment from a compound in the village on the ground that they had no right there. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the ground that the land was part of the abadi and that the defendants had been in possession of the compound for a very long time more than 12 years before the suit. The Distriot Judge on appeal decreed the suit, but the High Court in second appeal dismissed it. The judgment of the High Court is in second appeal No. 797 of 1916 and is dated 12th July 1917. Piyare Das and Rangi Lal were proforma defendants in that suit. Now, it appears that on the 22nd August 1913 Pyare Das and Rangi Lal had sold rights in the compound in question to Tulshi Ram and others, the plaintiffs-respondents in the present suit, and by virtue of the sale deed in their favour these plaintiffs-respondents have instituted an exaotly similar suit against the defendants-appellants for their ejectment out of the same compound. The present appeal arises out of that suit. The Munsif, adopting the view that the plaintiffs-respondents had no right, dismissed the suit but the learned Distriot Judge has taken a different view. He has allowed the plaintiffs a decree for joint possession and has ordered the enclosuref wall to be removed. The defendants come here in appeal.

3. The decision in the previous suit, of course, does not operate as res judicata and it may be said that it has practically no bearing on the present suit. Whether it is desirable that in a case in which a village is owned by a large number of proprietors one proprietor after another should be permitted to bring a suit on exactly the same cause of action against the same people is not for me to decide here. Such is the law in India and it does not follow that after the decision of this suit the point may not be raised again by somebody else in a third suit.

4. The findings of the lower Appellate Court are these: ' The constructions in suit consist only of an outer wall enolosing a space of land in which are a kacha well and 3 hands. The well appears to have been built in 1913. But it appears to be a fact that the defendants-respondents have been using the land for many years for' manure for pressing sugar-cane and other agricultural purposes.' I take the learned District Judge to mean by 'many years' that the defendants have been using the land for more than twelve years before the date of suit. That was the finding in the previous case and he does not appear to have differed., from it. Now, what does this come to By oonsent of the zemindars for more than twelve yeas the defendants-appellants have been permitted to occupy as licensees a plot of land on which they store manure, press sugar-cane, etc., and in pursuance of their license they have erected constructions of a permanent character, in particular a wall. Complete strangers who have just got into the village wish to turn them out and, not being able to procure their ejectment, have procured what is equally effective a decree for joint possession. This decree, if put into execution, will effectively hamper the defendants-appellants in the use of the land for if the plaintiffs-respondents get joint possession over the compound its value will be diminished if not destroyed. They have also obtained a deoree for the demolition of the wall. This is not according to the law as I read it. The defendants-appellants as licensees who have made permanent structures upon the land must be left in undisturbed enjoyment of it. They are not owners but they have the rights of licensees.The suit should be dismissed altogethe.

5. I accordingly allow this appeal and direot that the suit stand dismissed. The plaintiffs will pay their own costs and those of the defendants-appellants in all Courts.


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