Skip to content


Ram Jas Singh Vs. Babu Nandan Singh and ors. and Musammat Raj Kali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in70Ind.Cas.98
AppellantRam Jas Singh
RespondentBabu Nandan Singh and ors. and Musammat Raj Kali
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - civil and revenue courts--revenue court finding it has no jurisdiction--procedure. - .....he had he jurisdiction to decide this suit and dismissed it. no evidence at all was recorded. the plaintiff appealed to the learned district judge and the first ground of appeal taken by him was that, even admitting the fact, that the suit was not cognizable by the revenue court, the revenue court ought to have passed an order for the return of the plaint, the learned district judge held that he could not decide the case as there were no materials on the record on which he could come to a decision. he held that section 197 of the agra tenancy act was not mandatory, and under the circumstances he declined to interfere with the order of the court below and dismissed the appeal. in second appeal the plaintiff presses the third ground taken in his memorandum of appeal, namely, that the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: The plaintiff filed his plaint in the Revenue Court, heading it as a suit under Section 16b of the Agra Tenancy-Act. He then set out in his plaint the allegations on which he asked for relief from the Court. The Assistant Collector of the first class, before whom the case came on for hearing, was of opinion that the suit was not one under Section 160 of the Agra Tenancy Act, but was a suit for contribution by one judgment-debtor against others for the excess share which he had paid. He held that he had he jurisdiction to decide this suit and dismissed it. No evidence at all was recorded. The plaintiff appealed to the learned District Judge and the first ground of appeal taken by him was that, even admitting the fact, that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court, the Revenue Court ought to have passed an order for the return of the plaint, The learned District Judge held that he could not decide the case as there were no materials on the record on which he could come to a decision. He held that Section 197 of the Agra Tenancy Act was not mandatory, and under the circumstances he declined to interfere with the order of the Court below and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal the plaintiff presses the third ground taken in his memorandum of appeal, namely, that the Court should have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It seems to us that the Trial Court could certainly have returned the plaint to the plaintiff on finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, but did not do so. In the same way the Appellate Court, we think, could have done what the Trial Court could have done, and we think under the circumstances that this was the proper procedure for the Court to have adopted. Under the circumstances, we allow the appeal and direct the learned District Judge to order the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The respondents will get their costs of this appeal the plaintiff presses the third ground taken in his memorandum of appeal, namely, that the Court should have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It seems to us that the Trial Court could certaily have returned the plaint to the plaintiff on finding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit, but did not do so. In the same way the Appellate Court, we think, could have done what the Trial Court could have done, and we think under the circumstances that this was the proper procedure for the Court to have adopted. Under the circumstances, we allow the appeal and direct the learned District Judge to order the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The respondents will get their costs of this appeal.


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