PAIKA DASARU Vs. RAJESWAR BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises in this Full Bench lies in a very narrow compass. The question is : What is the proper construction to be placed upon Section 16 (1) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act (XXIV of 1951 ).

(2.) THE few facts which are necessary to state in order to understand the question raised are that that plaintiff and his brother Anandrao owned certain lands and there was a partition suit and pursuant to the decree in the partition suit survey No. 39/2 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/1 was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out survey No 39/1 to the defendant. There was then an appeal and in appeal survey No. 39/1 was allotted to Anandrao and survey No. 39/2 to the plaintitf. The plaintiff then filed a suit from which this application arises, contending that the defendant was not his lessee and he was a trespasser, and claiming possession of the survey No. 39/2. The defence of the defendant was that survey No. 39/2 was let out to him on his agreeing to surrender possession of the other survey number which had been let out to him by the plaintiff. A preliminary issue was raised before the learned. Judge by the defendant that only the Revenue Officer under Act XXIV of 1951 could decide the issue whether the defendant was a lessee of the plaintiff or not and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide this issue. The learned Judge held that this issue could be determined by the Civil Court, and the question that now arises before us is whether the learned Judge was right in the view that he took.

(3.) NOW, Section 16 (1) is in the following terms:--