Skip to content


Khooti and ors. Vs. Kishori Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All512
AppellantKhooti and ors.
RespondentKishori Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the defence was under section 270 on the pleading that rent was paid in good faith to a third person tikam singh. as directed in that section, tikam singh was made a party to the suit, and the question was taken up for decision whether the tenant had paid rent in good faith to tikam singh......defence was under section 270 on the pleading that rent was paid in good faith to a third person tikam singh. as directed in that section, tikam singh was made a party to the suit, and the question was taken up for decision whether the tenant had paid rent in good faith to tikam singh. the trial court held that he had, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit as laid down in clause (2), section 270. kishore lal plaintiff went up in appeal to the collector, who held that the payment of rent, if any made, to tikam singh by the defendant was against past custom and clearly in bad faith. the appeal was, therefore, decreed, and the tenants filed a second appeal under section 243 in the court of the district judge on the allegation that a question of proprietary title had been decided. in my.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. The plaintiff, Kishore Lal sued certain tenants in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 132, Tenancy Act. The defence was under Section 270 on the pleading that rent was paid in good faith to a third person Tikam Singh. As directed in that section, Tikam Singh was made a party to the suit, and the question was taken up for decision whether the tenant had paid rent in good faith to Tikam Singh. The trial Court held that he had, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit as laid down in Clause (2), Section 270. Kishore Lal plaintiff went up in appeal to the Collector, who held that the payment of rent, if any made, to Tikam Singh by the defendant was against past custom and clearly in bad faith. The appeal was, therefore, decreed, and the tenants filed a second appeal under Section 243 in the Court of the District Judge on the allegation that a question of proprietary title had been decided. In my opinion, the learned Judge was correct in refusing jurisdiction. No question of proprietary title arose as the defendants did not claim to be proprietors themselves. Their defence was the one provided for in Section 270, according to which, no question of proprietary title can be raised in the suit for rent, but has to be raised separately in a separate suit between the plaintiff and the intervener independently of the tenants. This application for revision is dismissed with costs.


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