SHEOKURI Vs. BHONREYLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the contesting defendants' second appeal against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, reversing the decree of the trial court and granting a decree for recovery of compensation in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The fact of the case have been set out at lenght in the elaborate judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner and hence need not be repeated here. The main contention raised by the appellants' counsel before us is that the lease in favour of the plaintiffs was granted only by two out of a dozen co-owners and hence the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as tenants of the land in dispute. According to the appellants' contention they are mere trespassers and as such not be be eligible to seek any compensation for dispossession from the land. Reliance is placed upon 1942 R. D. 234, 1938 R. D. 269 and 1944 R. D. 592. On a careful examination of all these cases we are of the opinion that they are not authority for the general proposition that some co-owners only cannot grant a valid lease under any circumstance what-so-ever. In 1942 R. D. 234 "it appeared from the record that all the Zamindars collected rent jointly in the patti in dispute, and hence on the basis of this factor it was held that only one of the Zamindars was not entitled to lease out the land to the plaintiff". In 1938 R. D. 269 it was found that the tenant was not admitted either by the co-parcenary body or even by their agent. "in 1944 R. D. 592 which was a case under sec. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for ejectment of a tenant, the question involved for determination was entirely different and according to the law itself, where there are more persons than one who constitute the landholder any one of them could bring a suit. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that defendants Nos. 7 and 8 who granted the lease in question in favour of the plaintiffs had been managing the land on behalf of the entire body of co-owners and as such the lease granted by them valid. A reference has been made to the statement of Mst. Sheokuri, appellant, wherein she had admitted that in the past, leases of the land in dispute were granted by Sanwala, Chandra and Lalji and Sanwala and Chander having died, the land is being managed thereafter by Lalji alone. As observed by Benton J. "when the ownership of property belongs to a number of persons the question whether any act with regard to the property should be maintained is a question of management of the joint property. Some acts may be of such a nature that they should not be upheld unless the consent of all be obtained. In other case a majority in their favour may be sufficient to give them validity and in some cases they may be of such a character that a single individual may be entitled either to represent the whole body or to enforce his own claim even inspite of all the co-shares. Having regard these considerations it appears that we should take account of the circumstances of each case and deal with them equitably". The plaintiffs in the present case were admitted as tenants in the ordinary course of management by the persons who had been managing the land since a number of years. The defendants Nos. i to 6 pleaded that they were in possession of the land during the past but this fact has not been borne out by the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as trespassers, and, if dispossessed, unlawfully, they can seek compensation as provided in sec. 184 of the Alwar State Revenue Code. WE, therefore, find no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .