Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present disputed lands were in exclusive possession of Ramachandra on the basis of the family arrangement and after Ramachandra the present plaintiff is in possession.

2. It is to be noted, Dinabhandhu had two sons Kartik and Sarduk. For non-payment of Thiccadari jama the first defendant obtained a decree in Title suit No. 8 of 1934 against the protected Thiccadar Danardan for ejectment of the Thiccadari interest and In Execution Case No. 294 of 1934, the first defendant ejected the thiccadar and settled the lands with defendant No. 2 who dispossessed the present plaintiff's father in 1935. The suit therefore was brought on 9-5-1946 for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The defendants contend that the village had never been permanently settled with Krishna and was never the joint family property of the family of Krishna; in execution of the decree for ejectment the landlord was perfectly entitled to be in Knas possession of the Sir lands; the lessee therefore had matured his rights on the basis of the lease and the present plaintiff has no right to eject any of the defendants.

4. There was a good deal of controversy in the Courts below on the question whether the Thiccadari village was permanently settled or temporarily settled. The lower appellate Court rightly held that the question is immaterial. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the different co-sharers were in separate possession of the Sir lands by amicable arrangement, and further that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit lands since the time of his father as asserted by him.

"The next question is whether in execution of this rent decree, the family members could be ejected from their possession. The Thikadar could certainly have been ejected from, his office, but mere non-payment of rent would not suffice to Justify ejectment from Sir lands. On the other hand, on his being ejected from the office of Thikadar he becomes a tenant of the lands with occupancy rights.

This has been discussed at length in Tirtha v. Lal Sadananda Singh (A), by a bench of this Court of which I was a member. The Court below was right in relying on that decision and arriving at the conclusion that though the tenure lapsed to the Zamindar the Sir lands did not revert to him. The plaintiffs must accordingly be held not to have lost their right to remain in possession of the lands."