Skip to content


Tajammal HussaIn and anr. Vs. Ali Bahadur Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All175(2); 56Ind.Cas.946
AppellantTajammal HussaIn and anr.
RespondentAli Bahadur Khan
Cases ReferredFazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 79 - suit to recover possession of holding--jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts--revision--high court, interference by. - - the words are very wide and in my opinion purposely made wide, in order to keep civil courts to their proper business and to keep them from meddling with matters which are best understood and best decided by revenue courts. 2. the learned advocate for the respondent attempted to make a strong case and to maintain that this was not a matter for revision......to recover possession of his holding. the suit should have been brought under section 79, and that being the case, no court other than a revenue court is allowed to take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any suit might be brought or made. the words are very wide and in my opinion purposely made wide, in order to keep civil courts to their proper business and to keep them from meddling with matters which are best understood and best decided by revenue courts.2. the learned advocate for the respondent attempted to make a strong case and to maintain that this was not a matter for revision. he called my attention to the following cases : jwala prasad v. east indian railway co. 46 ind. cas. 99 : 16 a.l.j. 535 jhunku lal v. beshashar das 46 ind. cas. 71 : 16 a.l.j. 495 :.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. This is one of those numerous oases in which Civil Courts attempt to grasp jurisdiction. The plaint is ingeniously worded and the plaintiff has gone so far as to add an unnecessary person in the array of defendants, but the real remedy that the plaintiff seeks for is to recover possession of his holding. The suit should have been brought under Section 79, and that being the case, no Court other than a Revenue Court is allowed to take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any suit might be brought or made. The words are very wide and in my opinion purposely made wide, in order to keep Civil Courts to their proper business and to keep them from meddling with matters which are best understood and best decided by Revenue Courts.

2. The learned Advocate for the respondent attempted to make a strong case and to maintain that this was not a matter for revision. He called my attention to the following cases :

Jwala Prasad v. East Indian Railway Co. 46 Ind. Cas. 99 : 16 A.L.J. 535 Jhunku Lal v. Beshashar Das 46 Ind. Cas. 71 : 16 A.L.J. 495 : 40 A. 612 Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad 45 Ind. Cas. 773 : 16 A.L.J. 433 : 40 A. 425.

3. But on referring to these oases it will be found that not one of them is a revenue case or a case of which a Revenue Court should take cognizance. The revision is decreed and the order of the lower Court is set aside with costs.


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