BUDDHU AND OTHERS Vs. PYAREY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals which have been heard together, arise out of two suits -one for the possession of 41 plots of land having an aggregate area of 1 bigha 15 biswas and 10 biswanasis and the other for recovery of arrears of rent of these plots. The Defendants were said to be in possession of these plots in the capacity of tenants. They contested both the suits. In the suit for ejectment they pleaded that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the plots except plots Nos. 198 and 199 and that the Defendants were the owners of the plots. In the other suit for recovery of rent, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 35/ -per year only which represented the rent for the two plots Nos. 198 and 199 which only belonged to the Plaintiff. As an issue of title was raised, the Revenue Court referred the issue of title to the Civil Court for a finding. The Civil Court found that the Plaintiff -was the owner of all the plots and decreed the claim. The Defendants then went up in appeal to the District Judge of Lucknow. In a brief judgment the learned District Judge agreed with the view taken by the trial Court with regard to the ownership of the plots, but he disagreed with the view of the trial Court on the question of rent. He held that the Plaintiff was entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 35/ - per year which represented the rent of the entire land claimed by the Plaintiff and held by the Defendants. He therefore modified the decree passed by the trial Court to the extent mentioned above. The rest of the decree was confirmed. The Defendants have now come up in second appeal.

(2.) The first point which is the only important point in these two appeals, is whether the Plaintiff was the owner of the plots in dispute. It was alleged on behalf of the Plaintiff that the entire area, which was known as Rajjabganj and which includes the plots in dispute belonged to one Rajjab Ali. Hamid Ali was the son and heir of Rajjab Ali. He executed a sale deed in respect of the plots in dispute on 19th January, 1867, vide Ex. 4, in favour of one Putani Begam. The heirs of Putani Begam then sold the property by means of a sale deed dated the 6th July, 1898, vide Ex. 8 to one Mohd. Hussain. On the 30th July, 1915, the widow of Mohd. Hussain gifted this property by means of a deed dated the 30th July, 1915, to Zaibunnisa and Zaibunnisa in her turn executed a sale deed on the 15th November, 1940, in favour of Din Dayal. There was yet another sale deed and Din Dayal transferred the property to the Plaintiff on the 25th November, 1942.

(3.) The Defendants have also tried to trace their title to a gift deed executed on the 23rd August, 1906. It is however not necessary to go into the question of the Defendants' title. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to establish his own title and if he fails in establishing his own title, it would not be necessary to examine whether the Defendants were or were not rightly in possession of the plots.