Skip to content


Mohammad Yusuf Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Mt. Shiam Kunwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938All135
AppellantMohammad Yusuf Ali Khan and anr.
RespondentMt. Shiam Kunwar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....decreed the suit against only one defendant. on appeal by the plaintiff, the learned additional district judge decreed the suit for rupees 54-1-9 against the defendants who were cosharers in khewat no. 75. a preliminary objection was taken before the learned district judge that no appeal lay to him. the contention was that the case did not fall under clause (d) of section 242, agra tenancy act. as already stated, the amount claimed was below rs. 200. so the case did not fall under clause (a). section 242, clauses (1)(a) and (d) lays down:an appeal shall he to the district judge from the decree of an assistant collector of the first glass or of a collector in any of the suits included in group a of the fourth schedule in which:(a) the amount of value of the subjectmatter exceeds rupees.....
Judgment:

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them and other defendants respondent by the plaintiff-respondent to recover Rs. 65-15-0 for arrears of revenue for khewat No. 75. There were two sets of defendants. Defendants 1 to 7 are co-sharers in khewat Nos. 75 and 8 to 12 in khewat No. 59. All of them contended that they were not liable to pay the revenue. The trial Court decreed the suit against only one defendant. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit for Rupees 54-1-9 against the defendants who were cosharers in khewat No. 75. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned District Judge that no appeal lay to him. The contention was that the case did not fall under Clause (d) of Section 242, Agra Tenancy Act. As already stated, the amount claimed was below Rs. 200. So the case did not fall under Clause (a). Section 242, Clauses (1)(a) and (d) lays down:

An appeal shall He to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant collector of the First Glass or of a Collector in any of the suits included in group A of the fourth schedule in which:

(a) the amount of value of the subjectmatter exceeds rupees two hundred;...and in any suit under Sections 221, 222, 223, 221, 226 and 227 in which,

(d) the amount of the revenue annually payable has been in issue in the Court of first instance, land is in issue in appeal.

2. The present suit is under Section 221. It is only when the amount of revenue annually payable is in issue that an appeal lies to the District Judge. It has been contended that when a person denies his liability, the case would come under Clause (d), inasmuch as the denial will amount to the contention that no amount is annually payable by him. The argument is without force. When a person denies his liability to buy the amount claimed, there is no issue about the amount as there is no contention about it. The question in issue is whether he is liable to pay the amount claimed or not. As the amount of revenue annually payable had not been in issue in the Court of first instance or in appeal, no appeal lay to the District Judge. The finding of the learned District Judge is incorrect. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be allowed with costs, the decree of the lower Court be set aside and the memorandum of appeal be returned to the plaintiff-respondent for presentation to the proper Court. The appellants will recover their costs from the plaintiff, respondent.


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