Skip to content


Deo NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Sitla Baksh Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in47Ind.Cas.891
AppellantDeo NaraIn Singh and ors.
RespondentSitla Baksh Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1801), sections 95, 177(f), 202 jurisdiction of revenue courts - suit under section 95 for declaration of nature of tenancy--objection as to jurisdiction of revenue court--appeal, whether lies to district judge. - .....place, the suit was under section 95 of the tenancy act, which act expressly provides that suits under section 95 must be brought in the revenue court and no other. it was, therefore, absolutely absurd to contend that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to hear the present suit. it would be reducing matters to an absolute absurdity to hold that the defendants in a revenue suit could by formally raising an absolutely untenable plea of jurisdiction take every case from the revenue court to the civil court. we accordingly allow the appeal to this extent that we set aside the decree of the learned district judge and remand the case to him with directions to return the memorandum of appeal and the cross-objections for presentation to the proper court. costs here and heretofore will be.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The present defendants brought a suit in the Civil Court for possession against the plaintiffs as trespassers. The latter pleaded that they held the land as tenants to the plaintiffs. The Civil Court thereupon made an order directing the defendants in that suit to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for determination of the question. This order was made under the provisions of Section 202 of the Tenancy Act. This suit was thereupon instituted asking for a declaration of the nature of the tenancy under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act. An objection was taken as to his jurisdiction to hear the suit, which he at once overruled. He then dealt with the suit and made a decree. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge and cross-objections filed by the other side. The learned District Judge entertained the appeal on the ground that a question of jurisdiction had been decided. He then dealt with the case on the merits' An appeal has been preferred by the defendants and the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections. In our opinion no question of jurisdiction was in reality decided by the Assistant Collector. In the first place, the suit was brought in compliance with the order of the Civil Court that a suit should be instituted in the Revenue Court. In the next place, the suit was under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, which Act expressly provides that suits under Section 95 must be brought in the Revenue Court and no other. It was, therefore, absolutely absurd to contend that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to hear the present suit. It would be reducing matters to an absolute absurdity to hold that the defendants in a revenue suit could by formally raising an absolutely untenable plea of jurisdiction take every case from the Revenue Court to the Civil Court. We accordingly allow the appeal to this extent that we set aside the decree of the learned District Judge and remand the case to him with directions to return the memorandum of appeal and the cross-objections for presentation to the proper Court. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause.


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