H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) This is Defendants second appeal. Plaintiff -Respondent Bhagwati Singh brought in suit for injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellants from interfering with his possession over certain agricultural plots. He alleged that he, Chhabinath Singh and Har Singh were real brothers. They owned certain plots detailed at the foot of the plaint as their Sir and Khudkasht. By means of a private arrangement, the three brothers divided the holding equally and started cultivating is separately. The land which fell in the Plaintiff's share and was being cultivated by him has been shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint. Subsequently, Plaintiffs proprietary interest in the land was sold in execution of decree passed against him and was purchased by one Smt. Shahzad Kunwar. However, he continued to retain possession over the plots and continued to cultivate them. The rights purchased by Smt. Shahzad Kunwar ultimately devolved on one Maharajdin, who on 14 -4 -56 relinquished the same in Plaintiff's favour. Defendants Chhabinath Singh and Harnath Kunwar, wife of Har Singh, filed a suit against the present Plaintiff which was dismissed. Having failed to obtain relief from a court of law Chhabinath Singh and Harnath Kunwar, with the help of their friends, who Slave been arrayed as Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 in the suit, threatened to forcibly dispossess the Plaintiff from the land in suit. The Plaintiff, filed the suit, from which this appeal arises, praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining' the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the plots in dispute.
(2.) The suit was contested by Chhabinath Singh and Smt. Harnath Kunwar, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They asserted that the Plaintiff had no light or title in any portion of the land in suit. Plaintiff did not remain in possession over any portion of the land in f suit after his Interest in the property was sold in execution of decree anal was purchased by Shahzad Kunwar. If Was denied that any private partition as alleged by the Plaintiff ever took place. Bhagwati Singh did not claim ex -proprietary rights within time, as such the Defendants became sole sir -holder of the plots in dispute after Plaintiff's proprietary interest was sold and purchased by Shahzad Kunwar. Alleged relinquishment of title by Mahrajdin was invalid and the Plaintiff never acquired sirdari rights in these plots.
(3.) Trial court found that although the evidence produced on behalf of the parties indicated that there was a partition of Sir arid Khudkasht holding but the partition could not be accepted as no formal proceedings in this regard, through court, were taken arid the same was not recorded in any revenue paper. Contract, if any, to this respect was contrary to law and could not be accepted. So far as the deed of relinquishment was concerned it was found that on the date Maharajdin executed it, he did, not possess any rights in the land hence the Plaintiff could riot rely upon if in support of his Base. As the Plaintiff did not claim ex -proprietary rights within six months, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 became exclusive sir -holders of the land including that which is in dispute in these proceedings. The trial court further found that the Plaintiff was out of possession and was not entitled to any relief. In the result Plaintiff's suit was dismissed.;