Skip to content


Niranjan Vs. Gajadhar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Tenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1908)ILR30All133
AppellantNiranjan
RespondentGajadhar
Excerpt:
act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 177 - question of proprietary title--jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts. - .....in his view that be had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. the opposite view may perhaps derive some support from the observations made towards the conclusion of the judgment in chhitar singh v. rup singh weekly notes, 1906, p. 247, but, with all deference to the learned judge who decided the case, we are unable to agree with him in holding that, when there is a question whether one party or the other is the cultivator of specified land, a question of proprietary title arises. this is our answer to the reference.
Judgment:

George Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1. On the facts stated by the learned District Judge of Jaunpur we hold that no question of proprietary title was in issue in the Court of first instance and that no such question is a matter in issue in this appeal. The learned District Judge is right therefore in his view that be had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The opposite view may perhaps derive some support from the observations made towards the conclusion of the judgment in Chhitar Singh v. Rup Singh Weekly Notes, 1906, p. 247, but, with all deference to the learned Judge who decided the case, we are unable to agree with him in holding that, when there is a question whether one party or the other is the cultivator of specified land, a question of proprietary title arises. This is our answer to the reference.


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