- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration that they are the sir-holders of the plots in suit and for possession over those plots by ejectment of the defendant-appellant.
(2.) IT is the admitted case of both the parties that the plots in suit originally belonged to one Bam jas who was the sole and separate proprietor of all of them. Ram Jas had three brothers Sheo ratan, Sri Nivas and Mata Badal, who were separate from him. The present appellant is Mata badal and the present respondents are the sons or Sheo Batan and Sri Nivas. In 1921 Ram Jas executed a registered deed of agreement by which he gave possession over the plots in suit to his widowed daughter-in-law Sm. Bachcha in lieu of her maintenance. She entered into possession over these plots in pursuance of that agreement. Thereafter Bam Jas died. Before the death of sm. Bachcha, Mata Badal transferred all his property including his proprietary rights in the plots in suit to one Gopi Chaubey. Sm. Bachcha died some time in the year 1940. Thereafter a dispute arose as to who was entitled to mutation in respect of these four plots of land. The Commissioner who finally decided the mutation proceedings directed that mutation be made in favour of Mata badal appellant. Consequently, the respondents brought this suit for declaration of their rights in the plots in suit and for possession against Mata Badal.
(3.) BOTH the lower Courts held that Mata Badal had transferred his proprietary rights in the lifetime of Sm. Bachcha and the right to possession over the plots in suit by either of these two parties came into existence only after her death and since by the time of her death, Mata Badal had already lost his proprietary rights in these plots, he could not claim 'sir' rights in them nor could he claim ex-proprietary rights. They consequently held that the respondents had become the sole 'sir-holders' of these plots and, therefore, decreed the suit in their favour.;