Supreme Court restores single judge's decree in partition case, rejects claim of permanent tenancy.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's decision and restored the single judge's decree in a partition and recovery case. Defendants 1 to 3 failed to prove their claim of permanent tenancy rights over specific portions of the property. The Court found the documentary evidence insufficient to support the permanent lease assertion, emphasizing that long occupation and rent payment did not establish permanent tenancy. The appeal was allowed with costs, affirming the lack of evidence for permanent tenancy rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Partition and recovery of plaintiff's share in the property.
2. Establishment of permanent tenancy rights by defendants 1 to 3.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition and Recovery of Plaintiff's Share:
The original suit was for partition and recovery of the plaintiff's share in the property located in mohalla Rahim ganj, Lucknow. The property originally belonged to Begum Mumtaz Mahal and was subsequently transferred through various transactions. The plaintiff, Kundan Lal, sought partition and recovery of his share. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition, which was upheld by a single judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. Establishment of Permanent Tenancy Rights:
The main contention by defendants 1 to 3 (Haji Faqir Bux and his sons) was their claim of being permanent lessees of specific portions of the property, marked blue and red in the commissioner's plan. They argued that these portions were acquired on permanent leases for establishing and extending a tobacco factory.

Trial Court and Single Judge Findings:
The trial court and the single judge of the High Court found against the defendants on the issue of permanent tenancy rights. They disbelieved the oral evidence and found the documentary evidence insufficient to establish permanent leases.

Division Bench Findings:
The Division Bench reversed the single judge's decision, accepting the permanent tenancy claim by defendants 1 to 3. They dismissed the evidentiary value of an agreement (Exhibit 12) between Faqir Bux and the Maharaja of Balrampur, which implied that Faqir Bux did not consider himself a permanent lessee.

Supreme Court Analysis:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the documentary evidence, including:
- Deed of Gift (1874): No mention of permanent leases.
- Sale Deed (1885): Not helpful to either party.
- Mortgage Deed (1904): Listed Khuda Bux as a tenant without specifying the nature of tenancy.
- Will of Haji Khuda Bux (1906): No support for permanent leases.
- Partnership Deed (1909): Indicated the possibility of vacating the land, inconsistent with permanent tenancy.
- Agreement with Maharaja of Balrampur (1918): Explicitly stated that Faqir Bux would vacate without compensation, undermining the permanent tenancy claim.

The Court noted that the onus of proving permanent leases was on defendants 1 to 3, which they failed to do. The long occupation and uniform rent payment did not automatically imply permanent tenancy. The cumulative effect of circumstances did not support the defendants' claim.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench erred in reversing the single judge's decision. The judgment and decree of the Division Bench were set aside, and the decree of the single judge was restored. The appeal was allowed with costs, reaffirming that defendants 1 to 3 failed to establish permanent tenancy rights.

---