SADA RAM Vs. GAJJAN SHIAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of L. P. A. 4 of 1964 Sada Ram and others v. Gajjan and L. P. A. 5 of 1964 Bhagat Ram v. Gajjan, as they have been directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE facts are that Gajjan, respondent, filed two suits, one against Dhani Ram and others and the other against Bhagat Ram, for possession of the land mentioned in each suit. That land was inherited by Smt. Malaro after the death of her husband, Hazari, in 1933-34. The appellants in these appeals, who were defendants in the two suits, were reversioners of Hazari and cultivated the land, after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Malaro made a gift of the land in dispute in favour of Gajjan, plaintiff-respondent. In the plaints it was alleged that the defendants (appellants) cultivated the land as tenants under Smt. Malaro and paid her some grain and a certain fixed sum of money by way of rent, that after the enforcement, of the Hindu Succession Act, Smt. Malaro became absolute owner and made a Gift of the property to the plaintiff who asked the defendants to accept him as the landlord and pay the rent to him but the defendants refused to do so and claimed ownership in themselves. For this reason, it was stated that the defendants had forfeited their right as tenants of the land and the plaintiff was entitled to the possession thereof after ejecting them. In the written statements filed in both the cases, the defendants denied that they were ever tenants under Smt. Malaro. Their plea was that Smt. Malaro surrendered the entire estate inherited by her from her husband in their favour, and, in return, they gave her some money and some grain by way of maintenance and not by way of rent. They also asserted that Smt. Malaro did not become an absolute owner of the land because she was not in possession thereof on the date the hindu Succession Act came into force and the plaintiff had no right to claim any rent or possession of the land from them. Lastly, they pleaded that in any case they had become owners by adverse possession. In the suit against Dhani Ram and others it was also stated in paragraph 4 as follows:-

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled in the suit against Bbagat Ram:-