Subba Rao, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Disfc. Judge, Secunderabad, confirming that of the District Munsiff in a suit filed by the Appellant for a declaration of his rights in respect of two mutton stalls and for an injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his rights.
(2.) THE facts, admitted or found, may be briefly stated. The Plaintiff is a butcher carrying on his trade in the mutton stalls owned by the Cantonment authorities in Secunderabad. It appears that in 1929 there was a butchers' strike in Secunderabad and, during that period, the Plaintiff rendered valuable assistance to the Cantonment authorities. In appreciation of his services, the Cantonment Board passed the following resolution dated 20th August 1933: Mutton stalls Nos. I and II in the Cantonment General Market to be allotted to Mr. Akram Mia during his lifetime or until he gives notice of vacation subject to the condition that this right is not under -let or transferred. Though the Cantonment authorities held every year a ballot for allotment of stalls, pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the said stalls were not included in the ballot and the Plaintiff was allowed to continue to be in exclusive possession thereof. As the Defendant, in violation of the terms of the aforesaid resolution, attempted to auction the aforesaid two stalls along with the other stalls in the city, the Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of his permanent right to the said stalls and for an injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his rights.
(3.) THE Defendant pleaded that, under the resolution, the plain till was gild. only a concession, which could be revoked at their pleasure having regard to the supervening circumstances. They also pleaded that, under the said resolution, no leasehold interest in perpetuity was created in favour of the Plaintiff and that, even if it purported to do so the resolution could not legally create any such interest as no document, complying with the provisions of the Registration Act or the Cantonments Act was executed, in he; tavern The Plaintiff sought to get by objections raised toy the Defendant by bleeding that' the grant was a Crown grant and that his possession was protected under S. 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act.;