Skip to content


Khuda Yar Khan Vs. Tika Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All191
AppellantKhuda Yar Khan
RespondentTika Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - civil and revenue courts--resumption of rent-free grant--act xii of 1881 (n.w.p. rent act), sections 30, 95(c)--act xix of 1873 (n.w.p. land revenue act), section 241(h). - .....suit has been instituted on the ground that the plaintiff, as zamindar of the patti in which the land in suit is situate, had the right of dismissing the defendants from the religious office of khera-pati, in lieu of which they held the land; that their services,, being no longer required, have been dispensed with, and they therefore no longer possess any right to hold the land. the main object of the suit is to-oust the defendants from the land.2. the defendants resisted the suit on various grounds, but they did not base their defence on any title higher than that of being grantees of the rent-free tenure as khera-patis of the village.3. we are of opinion that the dispute so raised in this suit is a matter which could form the subject of an application to resume a rent-fee grant.....
Judgment:

Mahmood, J.

1. The first ground of appeal must prevail. The Court of First instance found that 'the defendants and their ancestors have been in possession of this land for more than 50 or 60 years,' and that they 'are in possession as muafi-holders, and have never paid any rent.' The finding has not been disturbed by the Lower Appellate Court, and indeed the plaintiff's claim proceeds upon admission of these facts. The suit has been instituted on the ground that the plaintiff, as zamindar of the patti in which the land in suit is situate, had the right of dismissing the defendants from the religious office of khera-pati, in lieu of which they held the land; that their services,, being no longer required, have been dispensed with, and they therefore no longer possess any right to hold the land. The main object of the suit is to-oust the defendants from the land.

2. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds, but they did not base their defence on any title higher than that of being grantees of the rent-free tenure as khera-patis of the village.

3. We are of opinion that the dispute so raised in this suit is a matter which could form the subject of an application to resume a rent-fee grant within the meaning of Section 30 of the Rent Act (XII of 1881), and that the cognizance of the suit by the Civil Court was therefore barred by Clause (c) of Section 95 of the Act, and that, for similar reasons, the Civil Court under Clause (h) of Section 241 of the Revenue Act (XIX of 1873) could not exercise jurisdiction over the matter of the suit.

4. The cross-objections under Section 561 of the Civil Procedure Code have been abandoned by the learned pleader for the respondent.

5. We decree the appeal, and, setting aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, restore that of the Court of First Instance. Costs in all Courts will be paid by the plaintiff-respondent.


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