GIRISH CHANDRA NAMASUDRA Vs. MANILAL HAZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of Ram Labhaya, J., sitting singly dated 7-6-56, in S.A. No. 82 of 1954.

(2.) It relates to a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Plaintiff, who is the Appellant before us, claimed that he had obtained settlement of the disputed land by virtue of a registered kabuliyat, dated 21-7-37. Under the terms of the kabuliyat, ho was liable to deliver 20 maunds of paddy to the Defendant landlord, or pay a rent of Rs. 30.00 in cash every year. He claimed that, as such, he was a tenant of the Defendant and had been paying cash rent to him all along, but in 1355 B.S., when the price of paddy rose, the Defendant refused to accept cash rent and demanded chukti bhagi (paddy rent), which the Plaintiff declined to give.

(3.) Therefore, the main question which arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is -- whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and, if so, whether the order of the Revenue Officer directing eviction was ultra vires. On behalf of the Defendant Respondent, reliance has been strongly placed upon Sec. 10 of the Adhiars Act, which was published on 16-6-48. Sec. 10 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in any matter arising out of any proceedings under this Act or in respect of any matter which a Revenue Officer is empowered to dispose of under this Act.