Skip to content


Bahala and ors. Vs. Maula and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR19All34
AppellantBahala and ors.
RespondentMaula and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. xii of 1881, n.w.p. rent act, sections 95(n), 99(j) and 210 - jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts--suit for recovery of possession by tenant dispossessed by a trespasser. - - that, wanting capital, he took bhika, through whom these appellants claim, into a kind of partnership in the cultivation, and that, after they bad cultivated under this quasi partnership for two or three years, bhika wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from possession......this was a suit for possession of an agricultural holding. the plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant of the holding; that, wanting capital, he took bhika, through whom these appellants claim, into a kind of partnership in the cultivation, and that, after they bad cultivated under this quasi partnership for two or three years, bhika wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from possession. these appellants pleaded that they were the tenants of the zamindar of the holding. the lower appellate court found that the plaintiff was the sole tenant, and practically found that the case of these appellants was false. it is to be noticed that the plaintiff alleged a dispossession by trespassers. there were other defendants in the case, and these appellants did not prove that they had held title through.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. This was a suit for possession of an agricultural holding. The plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant of the holding; that, wanting capital, he took Bhika, through whom these appellants claim, into a kind of partnership in the cultivation, and that, after they bad cultivated under this quasi partnership for two or three years, Bhika wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from possession. These appellants pleaded that they were the tenants of the zamindar of the holding. The Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff was the sole tenant, and practically found that the case of these appellants was false. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff alleged a dispossession by trespassers. There were other defendants in the case, and these appellants did not prove that they had held title through the zamindar and that it was at his instance that they dispossessed the plaintiff. The case was one for the Civil Court. Having regard to Section 99, Clause (j), and to Section 210 of Act No. XII of 1881, we think Clause (n) of Section 95 of that Act must be taken to apply to cases in which a tenant of agricultural land has been wrongfully dispossessed by the landlord or at the instance of the landlord by some, one claiming title through the landholder.

2. Clause (n) of Section 95 consequently would not apply on the finding of fact here or to any admission in the plaint. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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