Skip to content


Har NaraIn and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All172(1); 28Ind.Cas.452
AppellantHar NaraIn and ors.
RespondentBalwant Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 79, application of - dispute between tenants--suit, whether under section 79. - .....arose was one between two sets of tenants with regard to the boundary between their respective holding's. the plaintiffs' case is that the defendants have unlawfully encroached upon their holding and appropriated land belonging herein. the first court seems somehow to have arrived at the conclusion that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs from a portion of their land acting on behalf of the zemindars, so that the dispossession must be held to have been effected by the zemindars and the plaintiffs' only remedy was one by a suit under section 79 of the agra tenancy act (local act 11 of 1901). we agree with the learned district judge that no suit under that section could have-been brought on the facts stated in the plaint. we notice, moreover, the lower appellate court has.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of remand passed under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. the dispute out of which this suit arose was one between two sets of tenants with regard to the boundary between their respective holding's. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants have unlawfully encroached upon their holding and appropriated land belonging herein. The first Court seems somehow to have arrived at the conclusion that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs from a portion of their land acting on behalf of the zemindars, so that the dispossession must be held to have been effected by the zemindars and the plaintiffs' only remedy was one by a suit under Section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act 11 of 1901). We agree with the learned District Judge that no suit under that section could have-been brought on the facts stated in the plaint. We notice, moreover, the lower Appellate Court has found that there is nothing to show that the zemindars had anything to do with the dispossession of the plaintiffs from any portion of their holding. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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