Baul Das Misra vs Digambar Kuri

Ross, J.—The plaintiff brought a suit u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a plot of land on the allegation that it belonged to him and one Haladhar, his uncle; but that he alone had been in possession thereof and that he had been dispossessed by the defendant.

The defence was that Haladhar''s half of the land had been given by him to his daughter under whom the defendant holds. The Munsif dismissed the suit.

It is clear on the admission of the defence that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the eastern portion of the land in suit. It is objected that no decree can be given for recovery of possession because on the admission of the defendant there is no cause of action. The question whether there is a cause of action or not does not depend on the admission of the defendant. The plaint discloses a cause of action and there is no finding that there is no cause of action.

Another objection taken is, that difficulties will arise in executing the decree. These difficulties may be left to be encountered when they do arise; but on the pleadings of the plaintiff and on the admission of the defendant it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the eastern portion of the land in suit as admitted by the defence. The possession of the defendant over the western half of the land will be maintained. This application is, therefore, allowed with costs, the decree of the Munsif is set aside and a decree in the above form is passed. Hearing fee one gold mohur. There will be no costs of the original Court.