Thadani C. J. - This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, A. V. D., dated 22.9-1944 who set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court which had dismissed the plaintiff appellant's suit for declaration of title and khas possession to the land in suit. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's title to certain houses standing upon the land and awarded compensation for the defendants' failure to vacate them. This part; of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

[2] The facts material to the appeal are these: On 20-1-1943 the plaintiff purchased from defen­dant 1 by two registered sale deeds the lands i in suit and certain houses standing thereon. On the same day, (20-1-43) defendants 1, 2 and 3 executed a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff, by which they were permitted by the plaintiff to live in the houses rent-free for three months and on the expiry of the period, they were to vacate them. On the strength of the purchases, the plaintiff applied for mutation of his name in the municipal register, but his application was successfully resisted by defendants 1, 2 and 4. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit.

[3] The defence to the -suit was that the land and houses were the ejmali paternal properties of defendants l and 2; that they were in possession of them as co-sharers; that the land was held by defendant 1 under an annual patta from Government and as such could not be the subject-matter of a sale; that the annual patta was renewed by the Government in favour of defendant 1 even after the alleged sale. Defen­dant 4 further contended that 13 lessas out of the land in suit were given to him by gift from his grandfathers Mahnur and Pahnur and that he had been in possession of this land for 25-30 years.

[4]. Upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?

2. Whether adequate court-fees have been paid in respect of the claim in the suit ?

3. Whether defendants 1 and 2 sold and delivered possession of the land and houses in suit to the plain­tiff, and whether the plaintiff has acquired valid right and title to the said properties by her said purchase ?

4. Whether defendants 1, 2 and 3 stayed on the properties in the suit by a kabuliyat and whether they are holding over after the expiry of the period stipulated ?

5. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the compensation claimed and if so, to what extent ?

6. Whether defendants 2 and 4 have any subsisting right and title to the properties in suit as alleged in their written statements, and if so, whether the plaintiff's' claim is affected in any way ?

7. Whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limi­tation as alleged in the written statement ?

8. Whether defendant 2 has acquired any prescrip­tive right as alleged in his written statement ?

9. What relief or reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled ?

10. Whether the land in suit is covered by annual patta and whether such land can be sold ?

11. Whether there can be any lease of the land or the house ?

12. Whether the suit lands are ancestral properties of the defendants and whether the co-sharers are made parties in this suit ?

13. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

[5] On issue 8, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not acquired a valid title to the land in suit inspect of his purchase by sale deed Ex. 1, but had acquired a good title to the houses by virtue of his purchase by Ex. 2- The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court in so far as it held that the plaintiff had not acquired any title to the land in suit by EX. l.

[6] Two points only have been argued before us: (l) Whether the transfer of the land in suit, which was sold by Ex. l and which was covered by an annual patta confers title upon the plain, tiff transferee. (2) Whether defendant 4 was, in any case, liable to be evicted.

[7] The lower appellate Court in a carefu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document