RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. KANCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought Under Section 172, U. P. Tenancy Act The suit was defended, inter alia, on the ground, that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. This plea and other pleas raised in defence were overruled and the suit was decreed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of first instance, the defendant appealed to the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed and the decree of the Court of first instance was modified to this extent that the defendant was given the benefit Under Section 173, U. P. Tenancy Act. The decision of the lower appellate Court is attacked before me on one ground and one ground only, namely, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

(3.) Section 265, U. P. Tenancy Act, provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in any suit included in Group 'A' of Schedule 4 in which the amount or value of the subject-matter of the appeal exceeds Rs. 50/- and Clause (3) of that section reads: "An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector in all suits, in which a question of jurisdiction has been decided and is in issue in the appeal." A suit Under Section 172 is a suit which is included in Group 'A' of Schedule IV. Unless, therefore, a case is covered by Clause (3) of the section an appeal from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in such a case does not lie to the District Judge. It is undisputed that a plea of jurisdiction was raised by the defendant in this case in the Court of first instance and was also repeated before the lower appellate Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, is that this plea was a mere eyewash and not the plea of jurisdiction contemplated by Section 265 (3), U. P. Tenancy Act. His contention is, that the plea of jurisdiction should be a plea to the effect that, on the facts alleged in the plaint, the Court has no jurisdiction, and he submits that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gokaran Singh v. Ganga Singh, 17 A. L. J. 1072 : (A. I. R. (7) 1920 ALL. 229 F. B.) supports this contention.