Skip to content


Sanwalia and anr. Vs. Nathi Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All561
AppellantSanwalia and anr.
RespondentNathi Lal
Excerpt:
- .....the learned munsif, in whose court the suit was filed, decreed it in favour of the plaintiffs. the learned judge, without considering the merits of the claim, held that the amount claimed was rent as defined in section 4 of the tenancy act and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction. the learned subordinate judge is quite right in saying that, according to the definition, rent may include what is paid on account of the produce of tanks. what he has overlooked is that rent is a payment by a tenant to his landlord. here the plaintiffs are not the landlords of the defendant but the parties are proprietors in distinct mahals. the learned subordinate judge was, therefore, in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction. we set aside his order and direct him be restore the case to his file and.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate judge of Muttra returning a plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court on the ground that the suit is one for arrears of rent under the Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs are co-sharers in mahal Sanwalia in M. Pingiri in the Muttra district : the defendant is a co-sharer in another mahal known as mahal Ghair khwahindagan. According to the plaintiffs' case, a certain tank is joint between the two mahals, and the zamindars of the former mahal are entitled to a certain share in the produce of it. Id appears that singharas are grown in the tank. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the suit was filed, decreed it in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge, without considering the merits of the claim, held that the amount claimed was rent as defined in Section 4 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction. The learned Subordinate Judge is quite right in saying that, according to the definition, rent may include what is paid on account of the produce of tanks. What he has overlooked is that rent is a payment by a tenant to his landlord. Here the plaintiffs are not the landlords of the defendant but the parties are proprietors in distinct mahals. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore, in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction. We set aside his order and direct him be restore the case to his file and dispose of it on the merits.

2. Costs will abide the result.


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