Skip to content


Khelari and ors. Vs. Har Prasad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All434
AppellantKhelari and ors.
RespondentHar Prasad 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..........plaintiffs attempted to eject the defendants through the revenue court, alleging that they were subtenants. the revenue court found that they were not subtenants but were tenants-in-chief, being in possession of undivided property as members of one family, and dismissed the ejectment suits. the plaintiffs now in their plaint repeat their case that the defendants are in possession as subtenants, the plots having been allotted to the plaintiffs under a private arrangement. they go on to allege in the alternative that if the said private arrangement is disputed they should be granted a decree for partition of these plots although the plaint has been carefully drafted so as to make it look as one which ought to be filed in the civil court, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs' case is.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court setting aside an order of the first Court returning the plaint for presentation to proper Court. As the question involved is whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, this would be a matter relating to jurisdiction if the Court below has acted illegally or with material irregularity. A civil revision would, therefore, lie.

2. The suit admittedly relates to a large number of agricultural holdings only. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs attempted to eject the defendants through the revenue Court, alleging that they were subtenants. The revenue Court found that they were not subtenants but were tenants-in-chief, being in possession of undivided property as members of one family, and dismissed the ejectment suits. The plaintiffs now in their plaint repeat their case that the defendants are in possession as subtenants, the plots having been allotted to the plaintiffs under a private arrangement. They go on to allege in the alternative that if the said private arrangement is disputed they should be granted a decree for partition of these plots Although the plaint has been carefully drafted so as to make it look as one which ought to be filed in the civil Court, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs' case is that in the first place the defendants are subtenants and in the alternative they are joint tenants with the plaintiffs. The question of subtenancy has been disposed of by the revenue Court. If the plaintiffs admit that the defendants are joint tenants, they cannot come to the civil Court for a declaration of their status. Their remedy is to go to the revenue Court under Section 121, Agra Tenancy Act. Section 230 bars the present suit The case is similar to Sahdeo v. Budhai A.I.R. 1920 A.I. 571 (F.B.) decided by a Full Bench of this Court where it was remarked that the defendants, though they had not claimed to be landholders, certainly claimed to be tenants, and, therefore, must be deemed to be persons claiming through the landholder Such a suit would fall within the scope of Section 121, and, the present plaint cannot be entertained by virtue of Section 210, Tenancy Act.

3. We accordingly allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance.


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