Skip to content


Rameshar Dial and anr. Vs. Sheodisht NaraIn Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All188
AppellantRameshar Dial and anr.
RespondentSheodisht NaraIn Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - civil and revenue courts--landholder and tenant--declaratory decree--act xii of 1881 (n.w.p. rent act), section 95(n). - w. comer petheram, c.j.1. in my opinion the suit as brought is cognizable in the civil courts, the jurisdiction of those courts not being barred by section 95 of the rent act. in order to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the country, the words of the enactment excluding their jurisdiction must be clear. the question is whether section 95 says that this particular suit shall not be brought. the plaintiff might have applied to the revenue court for possession of the land on the ground of having been wrongfully dispossessed; and i am inclined to think that, if he had sought for possession of the land in this suit, his claim would have been exclusively cognizable in the revenue court. but when a man's land is interfered with, he may bring an action of trespass. the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. In my opinion the suit as brought is cognizable in the Civil Courts, the jurisdiction of those Courts not being barred by Section 95 of the Rent Act. In order to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts of the country, the words of the enactment excluding their jurisdiction must be clear. The question is whether Section 95 says that this particular suit shall not be brought. The plaintiff might have applied to the Revenue Court for possession of the land on the ground of having been wrongfully dispossessed; and I am inclined to think that, if he had sought for possession of the land in this suit, his claim would have been exclusively cognizable in the Revenue Court. But when a man's land is interfered with, he may bring an action of trespass. The plaintiff brings this suit to restrain trespass on his land, and I think that the suit is not one which is made by Section 95 exclusively cognizable in the Revenue Court.

Oldfield, J.

2. The suit as brought is one for the Civil Courts to try. The question whether, if the plaintiffs had claimed possession, the suit would have been cognizable in the Civil Courts, does not arise. I am inclined to think that, even had he made such a claim, the suit would have been cognizable in the Civil Courts. The policy of the Rent Act is to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in cases relating to disputes arising out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Where the person sued disputes that relation, the Revenue Court would not have exclusive jurisdiction. In such a case the tenant could not, by making an application under Section 95(n) of the Rent Act, obtain entire relief. That clause refers to the case of a landlord who has ejected an acknowledged tenant otherwise than under the provisions of the Rent Act.

Brodhurst, J.

3. I agree.

Mahmood, J.

4. I have no doubt that the suit as brought is cognizable in the Civil Courts. I need not consider the question whether, if the plaintiffs claimed possession, the suit would be cognizable in those Courts.

Duthoit, J.

5. The suit as brought is, in my opinion, cognizable in the Civil Courts.


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