Skip to content


Krishna Chandra Vs. Panchu Ghosh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 2891 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Cal720,57CWN532
ActsWest Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950 - Sections 3(2), 7 and 9; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 9
AppellantKrishna Chandra
RespondentPanchu Ghosh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateBinayak Nath Banerjee, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateBireswar Chatterjee, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....'bargadar' cultivates with regard to the division or delivery of the produce shall be decided by a board established for the local area within which such land is situated. section 9(2) provides that no court shall entertain any suit or any proceedings in respect of a matter required under sub-section (1) of section 7 to be decided by a board referred to in that sub-section. the board referred to in that sub-section is the board established for the local area within which such land is situated. if therefore there is such a board established, the dispute as to the division or delivery of the produce must be referred to that board and in that case the civil court would have no jurisdiction. it has therefore, to be ascertained whether there is such a board established. only if it is found.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sen, J.

1. This is a revisional application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act from the decree passed by Shri A. K. Sen, Munsif, 1st Court, Baraset, sitting as S. C. C, Judge in S. C. C. Suit No. 129 of 1951. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 89/-as the price of 'Ehaga Paddy grown in 1357 B. S. in the plaintiff's land let out in 'Barga' to the defendants. The defendants contested the suit contending that they were in possession of the land not as 'bargadars' but as tenants at the rental of Rs. 8/- per year. The defendants also denied the plaintiff's claim as to the quantity of the produce and the price. The learned Munsif held that the defendants were 'bargadars'. On the evidence adduced before him as to the quantity of produce and the price, he found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 67/-. The suit was decreed in part accordingly.

2. Against that decree defendant 1 has filed this revisional application. The points urged in this Court are entirely new points viz., that in view of Section 7, West Bengal Bargadars Act 1950 taken, with Section 9 of the same Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to the delivery of barga paddy and that in any case the division should have been made in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 3 of the Act.

3. It appears to me that there is substance in the contentions raised here. The West Bengal Bargadars Act 1950 came into force on 15-3-1950 and therefore it was in operation when the S. C. C. Suit No. 129 of 1951 was instituted. Section 7, Bargadars Act provides that every dispute between a 'bargadar' and the owner whose land the 'bargadar' cultivates with regard to the division or delivery of the produce shall be decided by a Board established for the local area within which such land is situated. Section 9(2) provides that no Court shall entertain any suit or any proceedings in respect of a matter required under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 to be decided by a Board referred to in that sub-section. The Board referred to in that sub-section is the Board established for the local area within which such land is situated. If therefore there is such a Board established, the dispute as to the division or delivery of the produce must be referred to that Board and in that case the civil Court would have no jurisdiction. It has therefore, to be ascertained whether there is such a Board established. Only if it is found that there is no such Board the Civil Court will have jurisdiction.

4. Even if the civil Court has jurisdiction division of the produce must be made in the absence of a written agreement in the manner recited in Clause (2) of Section 3, Bargadars Act. This section was not considered by the learned Munsif because, as already stated the objections were not taken in the Court below. Accordingly the suit must go back to the learned Munsif for disposal according to law after deciding whether there is a Board established in the local area where the land is situated. The Rule is therefore made absolute and the decree of the lower Court is set aside and the suit remanded for decision in accordance with the directions given.

5. In view of the fact that the substantial questions of law were not raised in the lower Court, the plaintiff-opposite party will got the costs of this Court.


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