- (1.) In this case the plaintiff sues to recover khas possession of certain land. It was alleged that Mr. Mackenzie held these lands babundbust, i.e., without any agreement, up to the year 1271, when he died; and on the other hand, the defendant stated that he had purchased these lands from Mr. Mackenzie on the 27th June 1864, corresponding with the 15th Ashar 1271, and had by this purchase acquired a kaimi right, which the plaintiff could not disturb by obtaining khas possession. The issue was, was the disputed land under permanent jumma right in the possession of Mr. Mackenzie
(2.) The lower Court held, that because Mr. Mackensie and the present defendant had been in occupation of the land for more than 12 years, that occupation could not be disturbed; and, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
(3.) On appeal, the lower Appellate Court held, that Mr. Mackenzie's tenure had been what is called obtund tenure; that the defendant holding it under the same tenure held it no otherwise than as an obtund ryot, and so had no right of occupancy; and the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to oust him, and the lower Appellate Court, therefore, gave plaintiffs a decree for khas possessions.;