SHEIKH BAHARULLA ALIAS BAROMIA Vs. SHEIKH MAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think that the judgment of the lower appellate Court muse be reversed, and the case remanded for re-trial. The plaintiff sued the defendant (ryot) for a kabuliat. The defendant admitted the plaintiff's right to the kabuliat sued for. An intervener appeared on the allegation that be was in actual receipt and enjoyment of the rents bona fide.

(2.) The first Court, taking all the evidence into consideration, considered that the intervenor had proved actual receipt and enjoyment of the rent bona fide as required by section 77, Act X of 1859, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed before the lower appellate Court, and the substance of his petition of appeal was, that the first Court was wrong in point of law in dismissing his suit when the intervenor had failed to prove actual receipt and enjoyment of rent by him, and when he (plaintiff) had given sufficient proof of his having been in actual receipt and enjoyment of the rents.