Skip to content


Prosonno Mai Debi Vs. Mansa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All35
AppellantProsonno Mai Debi
RespondentMansa
Excerpt:
landholder and tenant - suit by landholder for removal of trees planted by tenant--jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts--act xii of 1881 (n.-w.p. rent act), section 93 (b), (c), (cc). - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under..........him to remove trees which, we must assume for the purposes of the present case, the plaintiff was in a position to show had been planted upon land contrary to custom or the terms of the tenure. now, with all due deference to the opinion of the judges who decided the case of deodat tewari v. gopi misr, weekly notes, 1882, p. 102, i have much doubt whether in that case i should have come to the same conclusion. it might possibly be said that this was a suit to prohibit an act or breach mentioned in clause (cc) of section 93 of the bent act. the suit, however, is one to obtain a mandatory injunction not to prohibit a person from planting trees, but to uproot trees which have already been planted. without expressing any view on the merits, i would remand the case to the first court under.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. I am of opinion that this case must be remanded to the Court of First Instance, to be tried and disposed of according to law. I think the lower Court has taken an incorrect view of the effect and scope of Section 93 of the Bent Act. This suit was not one for ejectment; it was a suit brought by a landlord who, so far as appears, was not asking for the ejectment of his tenant, but was seeking to compel him to remove trees which, we must assume for the purposes of the present case, the plaintiff was in a position to show had been planted upon land contrary to custom or the terms of the tenure. Now, with all due deference to the opinion of the Judges who decided the case of Deodat Tewari v. Gopi Misr, Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 102, I have much doubt whether in that case I should have come to the same conclusion. It might possibly be said that this was a suit to prohibit an act or breach mentioned in Clause (cc) of Section 93 of the Bent Act. The suit, however, is one to obtain a mandatory injunction not to prohibit a person from planting trees, but to uproot trees which have already been planted. Without expressing any view on the merits, I would remand the case to the first Court under Section 562 of the Code.

2. The defendant must bear the costs of the litigation hitherto, for he has prevented the plaintiff from having had his suit tried, and has put him to the cost of going to the Judge and coming to this Court.

Oldfield, J.

3. I am entirely of the same opinion.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //