Skip to content


Pirthi Singh and ors. Vs. Laiq Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.736
AppellantPirthi Singh and ors.
RespondentLaiq Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
.....civil courts act (xii of 1887), section 21 - subordinate judge empowered to hear appeals from munsif--revenue appeals--jurisdiction. - - he held that the suit clearly came within the provisions of sections 165 and 167 of the agra tenancy act and that the proper forum for that suit was the revenue court, and not the civil court. as a consequence he held that the plaintiffs' suit failed and accordingly dismissed it. the question thus raised is an interesting question but so far as this case is concerned and so far as i am concerned, the contention appears to me to be concluded by a ruling of the division bench of this court reported as sheo harakh v. this latter court was thereby empowered to dispose of appeals preferred to it quite as fully and effectively as if it had been the..........in this second appeal is that the subordinate judge of banda, not having jurisdiction to hear revenue appeals, had no power to take any action under section 197 of the agra tenancy act. the suit to which this second appeal refers was instituted in the court of the munsif of banda. in that court the defendants raised the question that the suit brought before the munsif was not cognizable by the munsif as a civil court. their contention was that the suit was one which if it lay at all, lay in the revenue court. the munsif put this in the forefront of his judgment. the fresh issue struck by him was whether his court had no jurisdiction to try this suit and he decided this issue against the plaintiffs. he held that the suit clearly came within the provisions of sections 165 and 167 of.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. The sole point raised in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge of Banda, not having jurisdiction to hear revenue appeals, had no power to take any action under Section 197 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The suit to which this second appeal refers was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Banda. In that Court the defendants raised the question that the suit brought before the Munsif was not cognizable by the Munsif as a Civil Court. Their contention was that the suit was one which if it lay at all, lay in the Revenue Court. The Munsif put this in the forefront of his judgment. The fresh issue struck by him was whether his Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit and he decided this issue against the plaintiffs. He held that the suit clearly came within the provisions of Sections 165 and 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act and that the proper forum for that suit was the Revenue Court, and not the Civil Court. As a consequence he held that the plaintiffs' suit failed and accordingly dismissed it. The plaintiffs referred their appeal to the Court of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge at Banda. Their contention was that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the Revenue Court could not decide it. The learned Subordinate Judge when he proceeded to try the appeal was met by a request from the Vakil for the appellants that he should take action under Section 197 of the Agra Tenancy Act. He held that he could act under that section, allowed the appeal, and decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The defendants have come here in second appeal and raised the plea set out in the beginning of this judgment. The learned Vakil for the appellants advanced the argument that this was a case which fell within the provisions of Section 21 of Act XII of 1887, Clause 4 provides that the High Court may, with the previous sanction of the Local Government, direct by notification in the Official Gazette that appeals lying to the District Judge under Sub-section (2) from all or any of the decrees or orders of any Munsif shall be preferred to the Court of such Subordinate Judge as may be mentioned in the notification. While this provision enabled appeals from decrees or orders of Munsif to be preferred, no provision whatever was made for appeals from a Revenue Court and, he contended that Section 196 never intended that a revenue suit should go in appeal to any Court other than the District Judge or the High Court, as the case might be. The question thus raised is an interesting question but so far as this case is concerned and so far as I am concerned, the contention appears to me to be concluded by a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Sheo Harakh v. Ram Chander 26 Ind. Cas. 783 : 13 A.L.J. 41 : 37 A. 76. The appeal before me is an appeal which arises out of a decree passed by the Munsif of Banda. Under Notification No. 1708, dated 25th April 1913, to be found in the U.P. Gazette for April 26th, 1913, part II, page 726, a notification was issued with the previous sanction of the Local Government, and in that notification this High Court directed that all appeals from the decrees or orders of the Munsif of Banda shall be preferred to the Court of the Sessions' and Subordinate Judge at Banda. This latter Court was thereby empowered to dispose of appeals preferred to it quite as fully and effectively as if it had been the Court of the District Judge of Banda, indeed by the virtue of that notification it became for this purpose the Appellate Court from the Court of the Munsif at Banda. This particular business, hitherto confined to the District Judge of Banda, had been transferred to the Court of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge at Banda and under Section 150 of the Civil Procedure Code that Court thereupon had the same power and could perform the same duties as the Court of the District Judge of Banda. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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