SOORAJMAL Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 4th of April, 1958 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhilsa (Camp Rajgarh) in Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1956.

(2.) THE suit out of which the present appeal arises was for a declaration of title and possession of a certain land situate at mouza Sandavta. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the land had been given on sub -lease to the defendant by the plaintiff's father, but that the defendant later on tried to get his own name entered in the village -papers in respect of the said land. The title of the plaintiff to the land was alleged to have been recognised by the Revenue Courts. The plaintiff thereafter served a notice for eviction on the defendant. The defendant in reply contested the plaintiff's title. The present suit, was therefore, filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the land in dispute and for possession thereof.

(3.) THE question as to whether a suit is barred from the cognisance of Civil Courts has to be determined not on the basis of the findings ultimately arrived at by the Courts, but on the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaintiff had clearly alleged in his plaint that the defendant was denying his title to the land in question. The mere fact that the Courts below found the plaintiff's allegation to the effect that the defendant was his sub -tenant as proved could not in my opinion be made a ground for the suit being held as unmaintainable. The Revenue Courts are not empowered to determine questions of title. Where the plaintiff comes with a distinct averment that his title to the land in suit is being disputed by the defendant, although he is a sub -lessee, the matter is not one simply of ejectment of a sub -tenant, but involves a further question for determination by the Court namely the dispute as to the title to the land in dispute. It was held by Shinde C. J. in Deviram vs. Ramlal (1955 MBLJ 1) that where there is a dispute as to title, the Civil Court is the proper forum for the decision of the case. It was held by Nivaskar J. in the case of Gopal vs. Inderchand (1954 MBLJ 852) that since a Civil Court is the final arbitrator as regards the legality of dispossession of an ordinary tenant, it is unreasonable to hold that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession against him.