Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by Neelkanth Mali who was plaintiff in a suit brought by him against Mehta Jagannath Singh, and the State of Rajasthan. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. There was an appeal by the plaintiff which was also dismissed. Hence this second appeal,

2. The plaintiffs suit was for a declaration of his title to a plot of land measuring 7 biswas on which a house and a well stand in the city of Udaipur. He also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the property in dispute. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the property in dispute for a long time, and said that the defendants were trying to dispossess him on the basis of an order passed in Svt. 1999 for the acquisition of land for construction of the Fateh High School building. His case further was that the land was never acquired for the Fateh High School;, and remained in his possession all along. But in July, 1947, the then Ruler of Mewar ordered the grant of bapi of the land in favour of Mehta Jagannath Singh. Thereafter the plaintiff was ordered to hand over possession to Mehta Jagannath Singh. The plaintiff, however, did not do so, and gave notice to the State under sec- 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and thereafter filed the present suit.

3. The defendants did not dispute the plaintiffs long and continuous possession of the property; nor was it disputed that the plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date on which he brought the suit. Their case was that the plaintiff was only a Shikmi tenant of the property. The property was acquired by the State, and thereafter it was given in bapi to Mehta Jagannath Singh, and consequently the plaintiffs suit must fail.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit for the first time in May, 1950 There was an appeal to the District Judge, which was allowed, and the suit was remanded with the direction that findings should be recorded on all undecided issues. Thereafter, the trial court gave its findings on all the issues in plaintiffs favour, but dismissed the suit in December, 1952, on the ground that notice under sec. 80 was not in accordance with law. The plaintiff then went in appeal, and the suit was again remanded for a finding whether the notice given under sec. 80 was in accordance with law, apparently because on the previous occasion no such issue had been framed. The trial court again gave its finding on the question of notice against the plaintiff. In appeal, however, the District Judge held that the notice was in accordance with law. Besides this, two points were urged in the appellate court viz..(l) whether the plaintiff was a mustakil shikmi as held by the trial court, and(2) whether the plaintiff could not be deprived of the property without due process of law after coming into force of the Constitution of Mewar in 1947. So far as the first question was concerned, the District Judge held that the appellant was declared a shikmi tenant long before the Constitution of Mewar come into force, and that order was passed by His Highness the Maharana as the ruler of Mewar, and could not be questioned. The District Judge thus disagreed with the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was a mustakil shikmi, and held him only to be a shikmi. On the other point, the District Judge held that the order for acquisition was passed in this case in November, 1943, and that the later proceedings were only in execution of that order, and therefore, Art. 13 of the Constitution of Mewar, which provided that no person would be deprived of his property without due process of law, would not help the plaintiff.

5. The main question that has been canvassed before us is whether the property of the plaintiff was ever acquired by the former State of Mewar, and if so when. The case of the plaintiff is that his property was never acquired, and therefore, whether he is shikmi or mustakil shikmi, he is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document