Skip to content


Jasram and ors. Vs. Babu Amar Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All439; 71Ind.Cas.475
AppellantJasram and ors.
RespondentBabu Amar Nath
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 202 - eject merit suit--plea of tenancy--bona fides, question of--duty of civil court. - .....formal possession. the present suits were brought on 9th august 1920, nearly two years later. the defendants pleaded that they had been re-admitted to the tenancy. the courts below practically admit that this was a state of things to which section 202 was applicable, but they did not apply the section because they thought the defendants' claim was not bona fide and because they held that the defendants could go on delaying their ejectment by raising this plea whenever the plaintiff came to the civil court to get actual possession. as regards the first point, here is nothing in the section itself to require the civil court to decide that the claim to a tenancy is bona fide before applying section 202, and in deciding this point the courts below were really usurping the functions of the.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. The issue in these cases is as to the application of Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain plots of agricultural land on the allegation that the defendants had been ejected by the Revenue Court and were mere trespassers. It appears that the defendants had been ejected on nth October 1918 and the plaintiff had obtained formal possession. The present suits were brought on 9th August 1920, nearly two years later. The defendants pleaded that they had been re-admitted to the tenancy. The Courts below practically admit that this was a state of things to which Section 202 was applicable, but they did not apply the section because they thought the defendants' claim was not bona fide and because they held that the defendants could go on delaying their ejectment by raising this plea whenever the plaintiff came to the Civil Court to get actual possession. As regards the first point, here is nothing in the section itself to require the Civil Court to decide that the claim to a tenancy is bona fide before applying Section 202, and in deciding this point the Courts below were really usurping the functions of the Revenue Court. There appears to be no force in the dilemma raised that the defendants can continue indefinitely to raise pleas of this kind. If the Courts below had required the defendants to institute a suit in the Revenue Court, as they should have done, and the Revenue Court had decided against the defendants the latter would have been ejected absolutely and no further pleas on their part would have been of any avail. The lower Court has urged the delay that might have been caused by an appeal to the Board of Revenue but in fact the appeal to this Court has caused more delay than any on the Revenue side could have done. I set aside the decrees of the Courts below and pass the order which the lower Appellate Court should have passed requiring the defendants to institute a suit in the Revenue Court within three months of this date for the determination of their plea that they hold the land as the tenants of the plaintiff. I at the same time send back the case through the Court below to the Trial Court with directions to decide the suit in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act. Costs here and heretofore will abide the result.


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