LALLU Vs. BACHCHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the civil Court on the 23rd of July 1946 for possession over certain cultivatory plots. The plaintiff claimed that he was the muafidar and that the defendants were trespassers who had taken possession of the land during his absence from the Province and that consequently he was entitled to obtain possession. One of the issues raised in the trial Court was the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit. Many other pleas were also taken and decisions were given by the trial Court upon them but the only point, apart from the question of court-fee, that has been decided by the Civil Judge of Unnao in appeal, is the question of jurisdiction which is the only point that has been argued before me.

(2.) IT is necessary to note that while the suit was still pending in the trial Court, Section 180 of the u. P. Tenancy Act was amended and the amended Section was given retrospective effect in certain circumstances. We are not concerned with the retrospective effect, that was given to section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act because, as I have already stated, the suit was still pending on the date on which the amending Act was passed and since it affected the question of procedure, namely the question as to which court was to try the suit, it had immediate effect, and as soon as the Act provided for the decision of such questions by the revenue court, the civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction and it was necessary that the suit be sent to the revenue court for disposal.

(3.) IN order to meet this position, it was contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that even under the amending Act Section 180 would not apply since the plaintiff's claim as a muafidar was not covered by Section 180. It is pointed out that Section 180 provides only for a suit against a person taking or retaining possession of a plot of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit him to occupy such plot. It is contended that a muafidar is not allowed to sub-let the land and that, therefore, he was not a person authorised to admit another person to the occupation of such land. The definition of a tenant in Section 3, Sub-section 23 was relied upon to indicate that a muafidar is not a tenant and is, therefore, not entitled to the rights of a tenant. It was further contended that in view of the cases reported in -- 'gaya Prasad v. Tasadduk Husain', 6 Oudh Cas 110 (A); -- 'suraj Bakhsh singh v. Baldeo Bihari', AIR 1919 Oudh 266 (B) and -- 'bala Din v. Ajudhia', AIR 1925 Oudh 211 (C) a muafidar has no right to transfer or sub-let the land in his possession.