Skip to content


inayat-un-nissa Vs. Salim-un-nissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in29Ind.Cas.568
Appellantinayat-un-nissa
RespondentSalim-un-nissa
Cases Referred and Kanhi Earn v. Durga Prasad
Excerpt:
occupancy holding - suit for declaration of title between rival tenants--landlord not party to suit--civil or revenue court--jurisdiction. - - we find, however, that so far as reported decisions of two judges of this court go, there is a strong concensus of opinion the other way. 223. we think it better that there should be uniformity of decision upon a question of this sort; and whatever our personal opinion regarding this point of law may be, we are satisfied that we should, sitting as a bench, follow the trend of authority in this court......on this controverted point as did another learned judge of this court, on the strength of whose reported decision the lower appellate court has dismissed the suit. we find, however, that so far as reported decisions of two judges of this court go, there is a strong concensus of opinion the other way. we may refer to the cases of bhup v. bam lal 11 ind. cas. 208 : 38 a. 795 : 8 a.l.j. 1009 and kanhi earn v. durga prasad 27 ind. cas. 913 : 13 a.l.j. 278 : 37 a. 223. we think it better that there should be uniformity of decision upon a question of this sort; and whatever our personal opinion regarding this point of law may be, we are satisfied that we should, sitting as a bench, follow the trend of authority in this court. we accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the.....
Judgment:

1. The point of law raised by this second appeal is whether a suit by one person claiming to be the occupancy tenant of a certain holding against another person also claiming to be the occupancy tenant of the same holding, in which the relief sought is a declaration of the plaintiff's title or in the alternative recovery of possession, where the zemindar, to whom the rent of the holding is payable is no party, is maintainable in a Civil Court. Sitting singly we have both of us been disposed to take the same view on this controverted point as did another learned Judge of this Court, on the strength of whose reported decision the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit. We find, however, that so far as reported decisions of two Judges of this Court go, there is a strong concensus of opinion the other way. We may refer to the cases of Bhup v. Bam Lal 11 Ind. Cas. 208 : 38 A. 795 : 8 A.L.J. 1009 and Kanhi Earn v. Durga Prasad 27 Ind. Cas. 913 : 13 A.L.J. 278 : 37 A. 223. We think it better that there should be uniformity of decision upon a question of this sort; and whatever our personal opinion regarding this point of law may be, we are satisfied that we should, sitting as a Bench, follow the trend of authority in this Court. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court and, as that Court has dismiSfeed the suit upon a preliminary point, we return the case to the said Court with directions to restore the appeal to the file of pending appeals and dispose of it according to law. Costs of this appeal will abide the event.


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