Keramulla Sheikh Vs Afajan Bibi and Others

1. In this case the suit was brought for the purpose of ejecting the Defendants from certain lands. The case made by the Plaintiffs in the first instance was that their father Samsuddin had a mourasi jotedari right to these lands, that upon his death they have succeeded thereto, been in possession for some few months after his death, and had then been ejected by the action of the Defendants. It has been found as a fact that they have entirely failed to prove their mourasi right and that Samsuddin, their father, was an under-raiyat under the Defendants. That being so, it follows that the right that Samsuddin had is not one which could be inherited by his sons and that in order to obtain a right to remain on the land the Plaintiffs must show that they had acquired some interest in the tenure after the death of Samsuddin, The learned Judge Mr. Justice Beverley who tried this appeal says in his judgment, "but it seems to have been admitted at the trial that after the death of their father the Plaintiffs had been in possession of the lands, and the case for the Defendants was that they had relinquished them." We have had translated to us the portion of the written statement which refers to what has been called a relinquishment, and in our opinion according to that translation what has been said there is quite consistent with the case now made by the Defendants, that the Plaintiffs did not after Samsuddin''s death acquire any fresh rights. The relinquishment may be equally the giving up of the land which their father held or giving up the right which their father held although as a matter of fact the law did not allow of these rights devolving upon them. The question resolves into one whether the Plaintiffs have obtained any under-raiyati right after the death of their father. It is not suggested that they have obtained any other class of right. With regard to this the Subordinate Judge whose decision on the facts is final, says "the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Defendants recognized them as their tenants by accepting rents from them." That we take to be a finding that there had been no acceptance of the Plaintiffs as under-raiyats by the Defendants and no such case as the creation of any new under-raiyati tenure was, so far as we can ascertain, made by the Plaintiffs, and it is certainly not the case on which they based their claim. That being so, we are of opinion, that the facts as found by the learned Subordinate Judge conclude any interference with the decision at which he arrived. We therefore set aside Mr. Justice Beverley''s decision and restore that of the Subordinate Judge. The Appellant is entitled to his costs of the appeal to this Court and of this Letters Patent Appeal.