Skip to content


Pashpati Vizia Nand Bahadur Vs. Hargovind Rai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All211; 122Ind.Cas.597
AppellantPashpati Vizia Nand Bahadur
RespondentHargovind Rai and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the question which appears clearly from the judgment of the lower appellate court according to it was 'whether the appellant is or is not a tenant of the land in suit. section 273, act 3 of 1926, clearly lays down that if in a civil court the defendant pleads that he holds such land as the tenant of the plaintiff. 2. this in my opinion clearly is a question within the purview of section 273, agra tenancy act, 1926. i therefore set aside the decrees of both the lower courts and send the case back to the first court, namely the munsif of ballia under order 41, rule 23 and direct that he should proceed to decide the case according to law......the lower appellate court according to it was 'whether the appellant is or is not a tenant of the land in suit.' how the learned subordinate judge in appeal went on to discuss the question whether the defendant was an occupancy tenant or not in a suit relating to an agricultural holding, i am unable to understand. section 273, act 3 of 1926, clearly lays down that if in a civil court the defendant pleads that he holds such land as the tenant of the plaintiff...the civil court shall frame an issue on the: plea of tenancy and submit the record to the proper revenue court for the decision of the issue. para. 6 of the written statement 'additional pleas' is as follows:the land in dispute is the occupancy holding of this defendant which has' been generation after generation in the possession.....
Judgment:

Bannerji, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession over certain plots of land. The defence was that the plot was the ancestral holding of the defendant. The question which appears clearly from the judgment of the lower appellate Court according to it was 'whether the appellant is or is not a tenant of the land in suit.' How the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal went on to discuss the question whether the defendant was an occupancy tenant or not in a suit relating to an agricultural holding, I am unable to understand. Section 273, Act 3 of 1926, clearly lays down that if in a civil Court the defendant pleads that he holds such land as the tenant of the plaintiff...the civil Court shall frame an issue on the: plea of tenancy and submit the record to the proper revenue Court for the decision of the issue. Para. 6 of the written statement 'additional pleas' is as follows:

The land in dispute is the occupancy holding of this defendant which has' been generation after generation in the possession of his ancestor and after them in this defendant's possession. Plaintiff 1 is only a zamindar of the village and the land in dispute is situate within his zamindari.

2. This in my opinion clearly is a question within the purview of Section 273, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. I therefore set aside the decrees of both the lower Courts and send the case back to the first Court, namely the Munsif of Ballia under Order 41, Rule 23 and direct that he should proceed to decide the case according to law. Costs so far will abide the result.


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