Skip to content


Pooran Singh Vs. Musammat Haidri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in37Ind.Cas.358
AppellantPooran Singh
RespondentMusammat Haidri
Cases ReferredRam Singh v. Girraj Singh
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - civil or revenue court--suit for declaration of invalidity of lease--agra tenancy act (u.p. act ii of 1901), section 197. - - as i understand local act ii of 1901, the intention of that act as well as of the previous acts before it was that when a rent court could try the issue which lay between the parties, then the rent court and rent court alone had jurisdiction......it is contended that the court below had jurisdiction and in any case should have exercised the powers, conferred upon it by section 197 of local act ii of 1901, in the course of the argument it was further contended that the case just cited by me can be distinguished and that in any event it is opposed to what was laid down in the case of kanhi ram v. durga prasad (5) and also in the case of gomti kunwar v. gudri (2) the principle laid down in ram singh girraj singh (1) has my fullest sympathy. as i understand local act ii of 1901, the intention of that act as well as of the previous acts before it was that when a rent court could try the issue which lay between the parties, then the rent court and rent court alone had jurisdiction. i understand this to be the principle which governed.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. The suit which has given rise to this second appeal was a suit brought by the plaintiff, who is here the appellant, to obtain a declaration that a certain lease, dated the 6th of August 1908, is void as against him. The plaintiff and Slier Singh defendant No. 2 were brothers. They both owned certain plots measuring 38 bighas 16 biswas. An application was made for partition and the partition was sanctioned on the 15th of June 1910. At that time defendant No. 2 was the lambardar and while the partition was still pending, he gave a perpetual lease of the entire plot in favour of one Musammat Haidri defendant No. 1. The major portion of the plots, amounting to 20 bighas 4 biswas, fell at the partition to the share of the plaintiff. He brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of Musammat Haidri. That case was dismissed on 25th March 1912 for default. The appellant then brought the present suit in the Civil Court to obtain a declaration that the lease was invalid and ought to be set aside. Musammat Haidri contested the suit and. pleaded that it was not cognizable by the Civil Court. Both the Courts below, following the law as laid down in Ham Singh v. Girraj Singh (1), held that the suit did not lie in the Civil Court and dismissed the claim.

2. In appeal before me it is contended that the Court below had jurisdiction and in any case should have exercised the powers, conferred upon it by Section 197 of Local Act II of 1901, In the course of the argument it was further contended that the case just cited by me can be distinguished and that in any event it is opposed to what was laid down in the case of Kanhi Ram v. Durga Prasad (5) and also in the case of Gomti Kunwar v. Gudri (2) The principle laid down in Ram Singh Girraj Singh (1) has my fullest sympathy. As I understand Local Act II of 1901, the intention of that Act as well as of the previous Acts before it was that when a Rent Court could try the issue which lay between the parties, then the Rent Court and Rent Court alone had jurisdiction. I understand this to be the principle which governed the Judges in Ram Singh v. Girraj Singh (1). At any rate I have the authority of that case for my decision in the present case and, as I said, the principle has my fullest sympathy. I dismiss the appeal, with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.


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