Skip to content


Panchu Lonia Vs. Ram Newaz and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All244
AppellantPanchu Lonia
RespondentRam Newaz and ors.
Cases ReferredAnanti v. Ghhannu(l
Excerpt:
- - the case therefore clearly falls within the purview of section 99, agra tenancy act. we are clearly of opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate court is correct.sen, j.1. this is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for possession of 24 acres of land forming part of plot no. 681 in a fixed rate holding situate in mouza kadipur in the district of jaunpur. admittedly the parties to the action were joint tenants of this holding. the plaintiff alleges that under a mutual partition half the plot referred to above was allotted to his share, the other half, towards the west, being received by the defendants. the defendants have unlawfully ejected the plaintiff from his portion of the holding. hence the suit for possession and damages. the court of first instance decreed the suit. the lower appellate court on appeal came to the conclusion that, having regard to the allegations contained in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by the.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for possession of 24 acres of land forming part of plot No. 681 in a fixed rate holding situate in mouza Kadipur in the district of Jaunpur. Admittedly the parties to the action were joint tenants of this holding. The plaintiff alleges that under a mutual partition half the plot referred to above was allotted to his share, the other half, towards the west, being received by the defendants. The defendants have unlawfully ejected the plaintiff from his portion of the holding. Hence the suit for possession and damages. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal came to the conclusion that, having regard to the allegations contained in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court and that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the Court of Revenue. This position is assailed by the plaintiff and we have got to see as to whether the present case is or is not governed by the Pull Bench decision of this Court in Ananti v. Ghhannu(l), The plaintiff admits that he and the defendants are cotenants of this holding. The suit is for possession and for compensation for wrongful dispossession. The case therefore clearly falls within the purview of Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act. We are clearly of opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.

Appeal dismissed.


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