Skip to content


Sahu Nand Ram Vs. Musammat Hira Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All249; 73Ind.Cas.495
AppellantSahu Nand Ram
RespondentMusammat Hira Devi and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 24 - plaint returned after recording evidence and hearing arguments--high court's power of transfer. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......the contesting defendants are land-holders of a village known as mauza raiba nad alipur, in the meerut district. the river ganges admittedly flows between the two villages. the plaintiff's case is that certain proceedings in the revenue courts resulted in a considerable area of land, which belonged to him and was in his possession as proprietor of village bisaoli, being recorded in the revenue papers as appertaining to mauza raiba nad alipur. a consequence of this was that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants, who are proprietors of that village. the suit was contested on a variety of grounds and it must be conceded that the defendants did, at the very outset, impeach the jurisdiction of the moradabad court to try the suit the learned subordinate judge fixed a number of.....
Judgment:

1. This was a suit about certain alluvial land situated on the river Ganges where that river forms the boundary between the Revenue Districts of Moradabad and Meerut. The plaintiff is a land-holder of a village called Bisaoli in the Moradabad District. The contesting defendants are land-holders of a village known as Mauza Raiba Nad Alipur, in the Meerut District. The river Ganges admittedly flows between the two villages. The plaintiff's case is that certain proceedings in the Revenue Courts resulted in a considerable area of land, which belonged to him and was in his possession as proprietor of village Bisaoli, being recorded in the revenue papers as appertaining to Mauza Raiba Nad Alipur. A consequence of this was that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants, who are proprietors of that village. The suit was contested on a variety of grounds and it must be conceded that the defendants did, at the very outset, impeach the jurisdiction of the Moradabad Court to try the suit The learned Subordinate Judge fixed a number of issues and took a considerable body of evidence. At a very late stage, however, he came to the conclusion that the order by which the Settlement Officer had caused this land to be recorded as forming part of village Raiba Nad Alipore, had effected its transfer to the Revenue District of Meerut and had, therefore, placed it in an area over which the Moradabad Courts possessed no territorial jurisdiction. He returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to some Court at Meerut. If this action had been taken directly the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad inspected the plaint, or after a brief and summary enquiry directed only to the question whether the Revenue Authorities had in fact taken action the result of which was to make the land in suit, whoever may be its proprietor in law, a part of the revenue paying district of Meerut, we might have felt disposed to affirm his order as it stands. We are, however, much impressed with the fourth plea taken in the memorandum of appeal to this Court, which calls attention to the practical inconvenience of the order under appeal, in view of the fact that the parties had produced all their evidence and the Court had heard arguments on all the issues, before it passed the order now under appeal. We think that this is a case in which this Court ought to exercise its powers of transfer. We intimated this fact to the opposite party at an early stage of the argument and we have, as a matter of fact, heard both parties on the question whether this suit, as it now stands, can most conveniently and properly be disposed of by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, or by come Court possessing territorial jurisdict.on over the Meerut District, which would have to commence the entire trial of the suit over again. We have, therefore, in substance complied withthe provisions of Section 24 Civil Procedure Code as to the notice necessary before an order of transfer' is made. It may be suggested that, as a matter of form, we ought to direct the plaintiff first to comply with the order under appeal and to take this plaint and file it in one of the Meerut Courts, preliminary to an application to this Court to transfer it back to the file of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad. We think that our jurisdiction is wide enough to enable us to dispense with this formality. Our order on this appeal is that, without determining any of the other pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal, or pronouncing any opinion affecting the merits of the suit in any way, we, in the exercise of our power of transfer, order that the entire record, including the plaint, be sent back to the Trial Court with directions to hear and determine the same. Costs of this appeal, which will include fees on the higher scale, will be costs in cause.


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