RAMZANI AND ANOTHER Vs. ANANT RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is against a decree passed by the courts below for damages for the cutting of trees standing on the boundary of a plot of which the applicants are tenants. The opposite party is the land-holder. The suit was filed in the court of a Munsif and was contested by the applicants on the ground that they were the owners of the trees and not the opposite party. The learned Munsif held that the opposite party was the owner and decreed the suit, the appellate court has maintained the decree.

(2.) It was contended before me that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of the provisions of S. 81 (2) U. P. Tenancy Act. What is laid down in S. 81 (2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act is simply this:-

(3.) The matter may be tested in another way. The question of jurisdiction has to be determined on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint; it cannot remain in suspense to depend upon pleas taken in the written statement. If according to the pleadings in the plaint a civil court has jurisdiction, it does not lose it on account of any place taken in the written statement. A question of ownership of trees may not arise unless the Plaintiff's ownership is asserted in the plaint and denied in the written statement. It cannot be assumed that the ownership asserted in the plaint will be disputed by the Defendant and that consequently a question of ownership will arise in the suit. When a Plaintiff sues for damages for the wrongful act of cutting his trees, he is entitled to assume that his ownership of the trees will not be disputed and that there will arise no occasion for applying the provisions of S. 81 (2) and to sue in a civil court. Once he rightly sues in a civil court, he is entitled to obtain a decree from it regardless of any questions raised by the Defendant S. 288 under which a certain issue is to be referred by a civil court to a revenue court, has no application because a question of ownership of a tree is quite different from a question of tenant right. No question of tenant right is raised in the suit, it being admitted that the applicants are tenants of the plot on the boundary of which the trees stood.