A tenant cannot be ejected from the land without the performance of Louhaidokpa (customary notice to quit) and a suit for declaration of right to the disputed paddy crop is not barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff is not legally bound to seek further relief regarding possession.

The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents claiming 195 1/2 pots of paddy valued at Rs. 1,173/- out of 322 1/2 pots of paddy harvested and kept in the custody of the O.C. Thoubal on the allegation that the paddy crop had been raised by them in the land under patta No. 105/19-Khabam Pana. The land under patta No. 105/19 Khabam Pana originally belonged to late Dorendra Singh, husband of the appellant 1 and the plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants of the entire 10 paris and 3 sangams of land on behalf of Arambam Dorendra Singh and after his death on behalf of Srimati Jamini Devi, the appellant 1, who is the widow of Arambam Dorendra Singh. The plaintiffs claimed to have remained in possession as tenants from the time of Arambam Dorendra Singh deceased and they alleged that they had paid loushal (rent) regularly at the rate of 12 pots of paddy per year, upto 1953. In the year, 1954, the plaintiffs claimed to have performed Loutaba ceremony for starting cultivation in the land in question on the Sripanchami day and they actually started cultivation, but the defendants 2 to 5 (the appellants 2 to 5) at the instigation of the appellant 1 began to interfere with their cultivation work even though no Louhaidokpa (oral notice to the cultivators before Sripanchami to quit the land) had been performed. The plaintiffs were thus obliged to start proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. (Criminal Case No. 58 of 1954) in the court of the E.A.C. No. 1 and a preliminary order was passed in this case and later on the land was attached on 3-6-1954. The final order was passed on 12-7-1954 in favour of the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs filed criminal revision application No. 7 of 1954 in this court, but it was rejected on 25-1-1955 on the ground that the finding of the learned Magistrate was not perverse.

It was further ordered by this court on 24-2-1955 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1955 that the paddy crop in question should be handed over to the second party (present appellants) in proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. Before the paddy crop could be delivered to the appellants, the plaintiffs filed the suit No. 3 of 1955 which has given rise to this appeal in the court of the District Judge, Manipur on 1-3-1955.

2. The defendants-appellants contended that the tenancy of the plaintiffs had already been terminated by communicating Louhaidokpa one month before Sripanchami of 1954 and the defendants 2 to 5 cultivated the land after performing Loutaba ceremony in the month of Sripanchami. Thus according to the" defendants, the disputed paddy crops belonged to the defendants 2 to 5 and not to the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the suit was barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

3. The learned District Judge, who tried the suit decreed it on 29-7-1955 and so the defendants have come to this court in appeal.

4. The main points which arise for determination in this appeal are :

(1) Was the plaintiffs suit barred by S. 42, Specific Relief Act ?

(2) Had the plaintiffs been ejected from the land in question after due observance of the custom of Louhaidokpa by the defendant-appellant 1 ?

(3) Was the paddy crop in question raised by the plaintiffs or was it raised by the defendants-appellants 2 to 5 ?

(4) Could the plaintiffs tenancy be legally determined even though no Louhaidokpa was performed, after the passing of the final order in proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C.

(5) Were the plaintiffs-respondents merely tenant-at-will and could defendant 1 legally enter into possession over the land in question through her new tenants in the year, 1954 and was the present suit not maintainable on this account ?

FINDINGS:

Point No. 1 :

5. The plaintiffs prayed for declaration that they were entitled to get 195 1/2 pots of paddy which were in the custody of Chinganbam Mani Singh, O.C. of Thoubal Police Station on the ground that the crop in question had be