LAWS(RAJ)-1955-9-35

DEVDA GUMAN SINGH Vs. DEVDA PARWAT SINGH

Decided On September 05, 1955
DEVDA GUMAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
DEVDA PARWAT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant's appeal against the appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 29th September, 1954 decreeing the plaintiff's suit which was dismissed by the trial court.

(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that the later previously cultivated the land under a well known as 'sonawa' free of rent in lieu of service which they rendered to the respondent who was a Jagirdar of the village, that on 12-5-49 the appellants wrote a document agreeing to pay rent for the above mentioned well as they did not want to render service any longer, that in spite of this document they continued to render service for sometime but as they had subsequently discontinued the same after 2-9-50 a decree for Rs. 450/- on account of hasil and lagbag for the preceding harvest may be passed against them in favour of plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendant appellants on the ground that they themselves were the Jagirdar of a part of the village and were holding the well Sonawa in 'muafi' and that they had never rendered any service to the respondents nor were liable to pay (any hasil. The trial court held that the document purporting to be an agreement for payment of rent made by the appellant did not stand proved, that the said agreement was inoperative because it was never acted upon and that the plaintiff's evidence had failed to establish his title to claim rent, and dismissed the suit. On an appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner took a different view. He observed that the document was duly proved and the fact that the appellants held the lands in lieu of rendition of service was also established and held that since the appellant ceased to render service, they were liable to pay rent to the respondent. He accordingly decreed the suit for Rs. 450/ -. Hence this appeal by the defendants.