PRABHU Vs. MAHABIRPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions (Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82 of 1956) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise a common point for decision, namely, what is the effect of an order passed under section 328 of the Quanoon Mal of Riyasat Gwalior after the terminate of a case under section 326 of the Quanoon Mal ? The petitioners themselves have applied that these petitions should be consolidated and this having been done, they are now disposed of by a single judgment.

(2.) THE facts of all these cases are more or less the same. The difference is in the dates of the filing of the various suits and the dates on which various orders were passed in the proceedings. That, however, would not affect the determination of the question stated above, I shall state the facts of case No. 82 of 1956, and, the facts of other 7 cases are typical and they need not be stated,

(3.) FROM the order it appears that on the basis of the certificate of a Patwari, the Court prima -facie held plaintiff entitled to possession, and directed that on his furnishing security, be shall remain in possession and restrained the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession. The regular suit under section 326 of Qanoon Mal was, however, dismissed and it was held that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the defendant, but that the plaintiff was working with the defendant, on the plaintiff's land on the basis of Adhbatia, which is a recognised way of doing cultivation on an understanding that the produce of the field shall be divided half and half. An appeal was filed against this but was disallowed. In short this decision became final. Thereafter, the defendant applied to the Tehsil court for the restitution of possession under sections 144 and 151 C.P.C. The Tehsildar allowed the petition and ordered the plaintiff to deliver possession back to the defendant, On appeal this decision was reversed by the Collector by his order dated 12 -7 -1955 and a second appeal to the Commissioner was also disallowed. In the last resort, the defendant filed a revision before the Revenue Board under section 39 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act (Act No. 68 of 1950) and the Board allowed the revision and ordered restitution. It is against this order that the plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision of the Board amounts to upsetting the finding of fact arrived at by the Collector and the Commissioner and that the Board has no jurisdiction to do so under section 39 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act.