Skip to content


Radha Mohan Vs. Mt. Riaz Fatmah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All37
AppellantRadha Mohan
RespondentMt. Riaz Fatmah
Excerpt:
.....comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be..........lease expired in 1925 before the new act came into force. under section 3(2) 'land' now includes grove land and a grove-holder is a tenant. the remedy of the plaintiff to sue the lessee of the grove undoubtedly lay in the revenue court under the new act. the mere fact that the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff did not amount to raising the question in the revenue court. the civil court had no jurisdiction to order ejectment of a defendant holding on after the expiry of the previous lease. we think that the only proper court which can try this case on the allegations made in the plaint is the revenue court. we accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decrees of this court and of the court below direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, C.J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal arising oat of a suit for a declaration and for possession of a plot of land which is alleged to be a grove. It appears that in 1898 this grove, along with some zamindari property, was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant's father for 20 years, the term of which was subsequently extended by a period of seven years. This lease expired in 1925 but the defendant continued to remain in possession of this property. The plaintiff had acquired this grove by purchase from Government. The plaintiff first brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendant treating him as a tenant. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and said that the land was not in the patti which belonged to the plaintiff. Instead of fighting out this question the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit and has brought the present suit in the Civil Court. The Courts below have decreed the claim. The question of jurisdiction was raised in all the Courts, but the point has been decided against the defendant. It seems to us that the objection must prevail. The lease expired in 1925 before the new Act came into force. Under Section 3(2) 'land' now includes grove land and a grove-holder is a tenant. The remedy of the plaintiff to sue the lessee of the grove undoubtedly lay in the Revenue Court under the new Act. The mere fact that the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff did not amount to raising the question in the Revenue Court. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to order ejectment of a defendant holding on after the expiry of the previous lease. We think that the only proper Court which can try this case on the allegations made in the plaint is the Revenue Court. We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decrees of this Court and of the Court below direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff will pay the costs of the defendant throughout.


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