Skip to content


Ram Partab Singh Vs. Chhotey Lal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All269
AppellantRam Partab Singh
RespondentChhotey Lal Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- 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 administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........brought a suit in the revenue court for a declaration that he has got a one-fourth share in the plot in dispute, i.e.,to the extent of 1 bigha 1 biswa, and that he along with the defendant is the principal tenant of the said plot,and for recovery of joint possession of the said plot. his case was that the plot formed part of an ancestral holding of the parties, and that by a private partition an area of 1 bigha 1 biswa in the plot in dispute was allotted to him, and that recently the defendant by ejecting the sub-tenant through the revenue court had obtained possession over the entire plot and was denying the plaintiff's title to the share that was allotted to him by the partition between the ancestors of the parties.3. the allegations of the plaintiff were denied by the defendant and.....
Judgment:

Iqbal Ahmad, J.

1. This is a reference by the Munsif (East) of Allahabad under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act 3, 1926. It arises under the following circumstances:

2. Ram Pratap Singh, plaintiff, brought a suit in the revenue Court for a declaration that he has got a one-fourth Share in the plot in dispute, i.e.,

to the extent of 1 bigha 1 biswa, and that he along with the defendant is the principal tenant of the said plot,

and for recovery of joint possession of the said plot. His case was that the plot formed part of an ancestral holding of the parties, and that by a private partition an area of 1 bigha 1 biswa in the plot in dispute was allotted to him, and that recently the defendant by ejecting the sub-tenant through the revenue Court had obtained possession over the entire plot and was denying the plaintiff's title to the share that was allotted to him by the partition between the ancestors of the parties.

3. The allegations of the plaintiff were denied by the defendant and he asserted that the suit was not cognizable by the revenue Court.

4. The revenue Court gave effect to the plea last mentioned and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, viz the civil Court.

5. Ram Pratap Singh, the plaintiff, then presented the plaint in the civil Court, and in that Court, at a late stage of the case, an objection was raised by the defendant that the civil Court was not competent to entertain the suit. The learned Munsif being of opinion that the point involved was a difficult question of law, and that the suit ought to have been tried by the revenue Court, has made this reference. In our judgment the suit could not be entertained by the civil Court.

6. It is provided by Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act that any tenant....

ejected from or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act by... any person claiming through... landholder... whether as tenant or otherwise, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession of the holding.

7. In the present case it is clear from the allegations contained in the plaint that the plaintiff's case was that the defendant was keeping him out of possession of his share in the plot in dispute, and in so doing was setting up a right of tenancy in himself. There can be no room for doubt that by asserting sole title in himself as a tenant to the plot in dispute the defendant claimed through the landholder. In other words, the defendant maintained that he was the sole tenant of the plot in dispute on behalf of the landholder. In view of these allegations contained in the plaint there is no escape from the position that the case came within the purview of Section 99 (1)(b), Agra Tenancy Act, and was cognizable by the revenue Court. As stated above, the plaintiff asked not only for a decree for joint possession, but also claimed a declaration of his right as a tenant of a portion of the area of the plot in dispute. A suit for a declaration of the nature filed by the plaintiff comes within the purview of Section 121 (1), Tenancy Act, and the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try such a suit is barred. It is clear that the plaintiff's case was that the defendant, in setting up a right in himself as the sole tenant of the plot in dispute was claiming to be a tenant on behalf of the landholder, and, therefore, he was a person claiming to hold through the landholder. And so far as the relief for declaration of his right prayed for by the plaintiff was concerned, the suit could, in view of the provisions of Section 121 of the Act, only lie in the revenue Court.

8. In view of the opinion that we have expressed above, the plaint must be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the revenue Court. Let the record be returned.


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