BHAWANI SHANKER Vs. JAGANNATH
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS second appeal, against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 19-4 54, has been filed by the defendant against whom the respondent's suit for recovery of possession and declaration of tenant's status was decreed by the trial court, the first appellate court confirming the same in appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have looked into the record as well. The only contention put forth on behalf of the appellant before us is that the appellant had proved by reliable evidence that the tenancy in question was transferred validly in his favour by the mother of Ghisaram, the last recorded tenant of the land in dispute, and that the lower courts were not justified in treating him as a trespasser. There is no substance in this contention. The evidence of the Office Kanugo coupled with the entries in the Revenue Record makes it perfectly clear that Jagannath inherited the tenancy rights of the deceased Ghasi and after Ghasi's death Jagannath's name was entered as khatedar in the Record of Rights in Svt. 1998 chakbandi. In all the subsequent khasra girdavaris Jagannath's name continued to exist. It is also significant to note that receipts for payment of rent of the land in dispute which were issued by the defendant in the capacity of the village Patel clearly show Jagannath Brahaman to be a tenant of the land with Birdha as subtenant through whom the payments were actually made. It has also been found as a fact by both the lower courts that the appellant came into unauthorised possession over the land in dispute in 1948 and failed to adduce reliable evidence in support of his claim. It has also been argued that the lower courts did not keep in view the provisions of sec. 52 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. This contention is too without any substance. Sub-sec. (1) of the aforesaid section makes it clear that a tenant who ceases to cultivate and leaves the neighbourhood shall not lose his interest in the holding if he leaves incharge thereof a person responsible for payment of the rent as it falls due. This is exactly the case here. Jagannath may have left the neighbourhood but Birdha was left in possession of the land who continued to pay the rent regularly as it fell due to the appellant who was the village Patel. This provision therefore, can hardly be of any avail to the appellant. On the contrary it definitely supports the respondent's claim. WE thus find no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.