Skip to content


Maharaja Vizinagram Vs. Chhango Kurmi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.834
AppellantMaharaja Vizinagram
RespondentChhango Kurmi
Excerpt:
jurisdiction of civil and revenue court - agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 95, 167--status of tenant determined by revenue court--subsquent suit in civil court not maintainable. - .....by the plaintiff-appellant, who is the zemindar, for redemption of two mortgages of a tenancy at fixed rates, executed by one ramdin on the 28th of july, 1878, one in favour of the defendant's father and the other in favour of the defendant's grandfather. ram din died, leaving a son lachman, who also died in 1901. on lachman's death the defendant's name was entered in the revenue papers as the tenant holding at fixed rates. the plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant to eject him from the holding on the allegation that he was only a tenant-at-will. in that suit the assistant collector held on the 8th of february, 1906, that the defendant was a tenant at fixed rates and that he was mot liable to ejectment. after this decision by the revenue court, the suit out of which this.....
Judgment:

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff-appellant, who is the zemindar, for redemption of two mortgages of a tenancy at fixed rates, executed by one Ramdin on the 28th of July, 1878, one in favour of the defendant's father and the other in favour of the defendant's grandfather. Ram Din died, leaving a son Lachman, who also died in 1901. On Lachman's death the defendant's name was entered in the Revenue papers as the tenant holding at fixed rates. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant to eject him from the holding on the allegation that he was only a tenant-at-will. In that suit the Assistant Collector held on the 8th of February, 1906, that the defendant was a tenant at fixed rates and that he was mot liable to ejectment. After this decision by the Revenue Court, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff. The learned Judge of this Court has held that such a suit is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Revenue Court as to the nature of the defendant's status.

2. We agree with the learned Judge of this Court. Having regard to the provisions of Section 167 of the Tenancy Act, a Civil Court is precluded from taking cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which a suit or application might be brought or made in the Revenue Court. Under Section 95 of that Act a suit may be brought for declaration as to the name and the description of the tenant of a holding and as to the class to which the tenant belongs. Such a suit was brought by the plaintiff and it was held by the Revenue Court, rightly or wrongly, that the defendant was a tenant at fixed rates and was not liable to ejectment. We are of opinion that the Revenue Court having determined the nature of the defendant's tenancy and the class to which he belongs, it is not open to the plaintiff to come to the Civil Court for a declaration that the defendant is a mortgagee and not a tenant holding at fixed rates. This would be an attempt to go behind the decision of the Revenue. Court and to ask the Civil Court to do that which by Section 167 it is forbidden to do. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


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