Skip to content


Makhan Lal and ors. Vs. Sagar Mal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All49
AppellantMakhan Lal and ors.
RespondentSagar Mal
Excerpt:
act (local) no. ii of 1001 (agra tenancy act), sections 4(5) and 32(2) - rent free grant--'holding'--'tenant.' - 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 section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and.....john stanley, kt., c.j. and banerji, j.1. this appeal arises in a suit for partition of a rent free holding. both the courts below granted the plaintiff a decree. this appeal has been preferred by one of the defendants, sagar mal, and the only ground of appeal pressed before us is that in the case of a rent free grant, as of any other tenancy coming under the agra tenancy act, a civil or a revenue court is prohibited by section 82, clause (2), of the act from entertaining a suit for partition. we are of opinion that this section does not apply to a rent free grantee. the section in question falls within chapter ii, which deals with the devolution, transfer and division of tenancies.' a tenant is defined in section 4, clause (5), and does not include a rent free grantee. a rent free.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises in a suit for partition of a rent free holding. Both the Courts below granted the plaintiff a decree. This appeal has been preferred by one of the defendants, Sagar Mal, and the only ground of appeal pressed before us is that in the case of a rent free grant, as of any other tenancy coming under the Agra Tenancy Act, a Civil or a Revenue Court is prohibited by Section 82, Clause (2), of the Act from entertaining a suit for partition. We are of opinion that this section does not apply to a rent free grantee. The section in question falls within Chapter II, which deals with the devolution, transfer and division of tenancies.' A tenant is defined in Section 4, Clause (5), and does not include a rent free grantee. A rent free grantee, as also a mortgagee of proprietary right, is by that definition expressly excluded. Consequently a rent free grant does not appear to us to be a 'holding' within the meaning of Section 32. The word 'holding' in that section means, we think, the holding of a tenant as defined by thet Act. We may point out that the heading of Section 32 is: 'Division of tenancies,' that is the division of the holdings of tenants as denned in Section 4. We may also point out that Chapter X of the Act deals with the resumption of rent free grants. A separate I Chapter in the Act is devoted to these grants. This view was expressed by our brother Richards in the case of Abdul Karim v. Ramzan Weekly Notes 1908 p. 197. Our learned brother, after referring at length to some of the sections of the Agra Tenancy Act, held that a suit for partition of land alleged to be rent free is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court either by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act or by Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act. We therefore agree in the view expressed by both the Courts below and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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