Mithan Lal, J. - (1.) These four connected appeals filed by the defendants arise out of four connected suits filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that he was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute and also for recovery of possession. The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff was a cotenant of the plots in dispute along with one Qalandar, that he and Qalandar obtained joint sanads under the Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act and thereafter Qalandar transferred his interest in the land to the plaintiff on 15th February 1952 and in this way the plaintiff became entitled to the entire plots. It was stated that in the month of November 1951 Qalandar executed a patta in favour of the defendants. The patta was fictitious and Qalandar had no right to execute the patta and as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were interfering in plaintiff's possession that led to the filing of the present suits. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suits. Their plea was that Qalandar was the sole tenant of all the plots in dispute and the plaintiff was not a cotenant and so the plaintiff had no right to obtain a joint sanad along with Qalandar under Sec. 6 of Act X of 1949. The sanad was said to confer no right upon the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be exclusive subtenant of certain plots while defendants No. 2 claimed to be exclusive subtenant of some other plots as detailed in the written statements. It was also their case that though the patta was executed in November 1951 the defendants entered into possession from the beginning of 1359F, and thus became adhivasis by virtue of their cultivatory possession in that year.
(2.) These suits were originally filed in the revenue court prior to the abolition of Zamindari, but later on the plaints were returned and the suits were then filed in the court of the Munsif. The trial court held that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had become sirdars with effect from 30th October 1954 and that the plaintiff had no right to obtain a declaration under Sec. 6 of Act X of 1949 as he was not a cotenant along with Qalandar and so he was not a bhunzidhar of the plots in dispute. Against these findings the plaintiff went in appeal and the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that even though the plaintiff was not a cotenant along with Qalandar in fact, yet the effect of making a joint application by Qalandar and the plaintiff was to admit the plaintiff as a cotenant and so the joint sanad which had been obtained by the plaintiff and Qalandar was valid and the plaintiff became a cotenant under Sec. 6 of Act X of 1949. On the question of possession that court held that defendants Nos, 1 and 2 got into possession with effect from the date of the patta, that is November 1951 and that as they were not in possession throughout the year 1359F, they did not acquire any adhivasi of sirdari rights. That court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff having become a cotenant by statutory provision of Sec. 3-B and 3-C of Act X of 1949 Qalandar could not execute any valid sub-lease without the concurrence of the plaintiff and so all the four suits were decreed. It is how the defendants have come in these four second appeals.
(3.) Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned advocate for the appellants, has contended that it having been found that the plaintiff was not a cotenant in fact along with Qalandar no sanad could be jointly obtained by Qalandar and the plaintiff under Sec. 6 of Act X of 1949 and the purpose of Sec. 3-B is not to give an outsider a right to obtain such a sanad. According to him that section was meant to cover the cases of only those persons who were in fact tenants or co-tenants but whose names were not recorded in the papers. His second contention is that no rights could be created in favour of the plaintiff before the execution of the sale-deed on 15th February 1952 and that in November 1951 when Qalandat executed a patta in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 he had every right to execute a patta. The defendants, therefore became sub-tenants on the basis of that patta and so became adhivasis under Sec. 20(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereafter sirdars. It is also his contention that even if the plaintiff became a cotenant by virtue of the sanad granted under Sec. 6 of the Act X of 1949 Qalandar had transferable right in half of the land and by virtue of Cl. (c) of Sec. 7 of the said Act he could transfer his half right by execution of a patta in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff could not be granted any decree and in no case on the whole of the land and if the plaintiff had any remedy it lay in a suit for partition.;