Skip to content


Musammat Gomti and anr. Vs. Mundi Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.517
AppellantMusammat Gomti and anr.
RespondentMundi Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
rent act (local xii of 1881) - proprietary title--decision of revenue court--subsequent suit in civil court--res judicata. - .....to say, prior to the coming into operation of the present agra tenancy act, the defendants in the present suit sued for profits. the plaintiffs in the present suit were defendants, and they pleaded that although the plaintiffs wore recorded they were not co-sharers. the suit for profits was dismissed. the defendants in the present suit then applied in the revenue court for partition. the revenue court referred the plaintiff's to the civil court to have the question of title determined. the present suit was accordingly instituted. the plaintiffs seek now to rely upon the decision of the revenue court in the suit for profits as being res judicata. under the old rent act, the revenue court could not try a question of title. there are provisions in the present tenancy act enabling the.....
Judgment:

1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows:

On 13th November 1901, that is to say, prior to the coming into operation of the present Agra Tenancy Act, the defendants in the present suit sued for profits. The plaintiffs in the present suit were defendants, and they pleaded that although the plaintiffs wore recorded they were not co-sharers. The suit for profits was dismissed. The defendants in the present suit then applied in the Revenue Court for partition. The Revenue Court referred the plaintiff's to the Civil Court to have the question of title determined. The present suit was accordingly instituted. The plaintiffs seek now to rely upon the decision of the Revenue Court in the suit for profits as being res judicata. Under the old Rent Act, the Revenue Court could not try a question of title. There are provisions in the present Tenancy Act enabling the Revenue Court in certain oases to adopt the prescribed procedure and to try questions of proprietary title. In our judgment the suit having been instituted under the old Act No. XII of 1881, the Revenue Court, even after the present Act had come into operation, had no jurisdiction to try a question of title arising in that suit. The matter accordingly was not res judicata. The decision of the Court below was correct. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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