Skip to content


Kishen Singh Vs. Dungaria and Karinga - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 100 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Raj166
ActsRajasthan Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 4, 5 and 6
AppellantKishen Singh
RespondentDungaria and Karinga
Respondent Advocate Party in person, Opposite Party No. 2
Excerpt:
- .....any agricultural land is sought on the allegation that he has taken forcible possession of the land, ordinance no. 9 of 1949 does not apply. 5. in the present case, the plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the land in suit was under his cultivating possession as a proprietor and the defendants took forcible possession of it only a few months before the suit. the plaintiff nowhere alleged in his plaint that the defendants were his tenants. the defendants also did not allege in their written statement that they werethe tenants of the plaintiff, but what was alleged by them was that they were the full proprietors of the land in suit, and were in possession of it since generations. they further alleged that the debt of the plaintiff was discharged since long and therefore,.....
Judgment:

Trilochan Dutt, J.

1. This is an application for revising the order of the learned District Judge, Rajsamand, dated 21st of July 1949.

2. A suit for the possession of some agricultural land was brought by the applicant Kishen Singh against the non-applicants Dungaria and Karinga, in the Court of the Munsiff Nathdwara, and a decree for possession of said land was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, who are non-applicants in the present revision, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff, in the Court of the District Judge, Rajsamand, which Court is defunct now. On the 21st of July 1949, this appeal came up for hearing before the learned District Judge. During the course of the arguments, a point was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appeal cannot proceed further under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Ordinance No. 9 of 1949. The learned District Judge passed stay order in the appeal and consigned the file of the appeal to record room.

3. Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 provides for the protection of tenants from ejectment from their holdings by their landlords. The relevant portions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Ordinance run as follows :

'Section 4.' Tenants not liable to ejectment :

'(1) So long as this Ordinance is in force in any area of Rajasthan, no tenant shall be liable to ejectment or dispossession from the whole or a part of his holding in such area on any ground whatsoever.' 'Section 5.' Provisions as to pending suits etc. :

'All suits, appeals, revisions, references, applications and proceedings, for the ejectment of tenants, pending on the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, shall be temporarily consigned to records.' 'Section 6.' Decrees and orders for ejectment to be stayed : '(1) All decrees or orders for ejectment, which, at the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, have not been fully executed, shall remain in abeyance and their execution shall be stayed so long as this Ordinance remains in force.'

4. From the perusal of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Ordinance No. 9 of 1949, it appears, that they apply only to cases where relation of landlord and tenant exists or is so alleged to exist between the parties. Where the ejectment of a person from any agricultural land is sought on the allegation that he has taken forcible possession of the land, Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 does not apply.

5. In the present case, the plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the land in suit was under his cultivating possession as a proprietor and the defendants took forcible possession of it only a few months before the suit. The plaintiff nowhere alleged in his plaint that the defendants were his tenants. The defendants also did not allege in their written statement that they werethe tenants of the plaintiff, but what was alleged by them was that they were the full proprietors of the land in suit, and were in possession of it since generations. They further alleged that the debt of the plaintiff was discharged since long and therefore, the plaintiff cannot eject them. There was no issue in this case with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The only issue, that was framed in the case by the trial Court, was whether the defendants took forcible possession of the land in suit in 'Asadh' last? This issue was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and a decree was passed. The present case was not a case for the ejectment of a tenant by a landlord and hence Ordinance No. 9 of 1949 had no application, and therefore, the order of the learned District Judge, Rajsamand dated 21st of July 1949, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside with the direction that the appeal be taken on the list and be disposed of according to law.


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