PRIMAN Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision raises the question whether under Section 77, Punjab Tenancy Act, jurisdiction exists in a Civil or in a Revenue Court in respect of the particular suit.

(2.) The facts shortly are these. One Ram Dayal and others who are defendants Nos. 8 to 14 in the present suit were occupancy tenants of the suit land situate in village Hanoli Khurd in the Hissar District. Hari Singh and others who are defendants Nos. 1 to 7 In the suit are the landlords of that land. Defendants Nos. 8 to 14 left the land a considerable number of years ago, after which the plaintiffs had been in possession. The plaintiffs claimed that they had become occupancy tenants of the suit land by virtue of exchange of other land with defendants Nos. 8 to 14. The landlords denied that there had been any such exchange with their consent and while admitting the possession of the plaintiffs claimed that they were ordinary tenants.

(3.) This was the state of affairs about the year 1943 when the landlords filed a suit in the Revenue Court under Clause (e) of Section 77(3). Punjab Tenancy Act.