MULA Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal against the decree of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, confirming a decision of the trial court b'y which the plaintiff-respondents' suit for an, injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with their possession over the plot of the land in dispute and for a declaration, that he was entitled to receive the sale price of the crop deposited in court was decreed. The facts which have led to this appeal, yery briefly, are these. In the year 1951 there was a dispute between the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants over a plot of land which led to an apprehension of breach of the peace. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated, and the trying Magistrate attached the land in dispute as well as the standing crop. A supurdar was however appointed by the court and the crop was sold by him for Rs. 700/- and the amount deposited in. court. The plaintiff-respondents were also permitted to cultivate the land in dispute for the Kharif season of 1951 in consideration of payment of a sum of Rs. 100/- to the court. on 11th December, 1951, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. holding that the defendant-appellants were in possession. The operative part of his order runs thus:

(2.) It is necessary to note the ultimate result of the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the revenue court. It has been stated above that the suit was decreed by that court. The defendants however filed an appeal, and the Additional Commissioner held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was irregular and set aside the decree. He remanded the case to the trial court for decision according to merits. The plaintiff-respondents filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which is still pending. The Board passed an order staying the hearing of the remanded suit and there the matter stands today.

(3.) Another fact must be noted before passing on to the merits of this appeal. In the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents, the defendants had set up a plea that they were batai-tenants. The plaintiffs had alleged that they were the bhumidars of the land in dispute. The trial court framed two issues (1) whether the plaintiffs were the bhumidars; and (2) whether the defendants were batai-tenants? Both these issues were referred to the revenue court for decision. That court held that the plaintiffs were bhumidars and that the defendants were not batai-tenants. No objection was taken by the defendants to the action of the trial Court in sending these issues to the revenue court for decision. They appeared before the revenue court without protest and led evidence in support of their case. Subsequently, in the other suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, the question arose whether the defendants were batai-tenants of the land in dispute: and the revenue court framed an issue. It did not hear any evidence afresh but, relying on the evidence already heard by it when, deciding the issues remitted by the civil court in the other suit and relying on its decision on those issues, it held that the defendants were not batai-tenants.