KIRPAL Vs. NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This. second appeal is directed, against the judgment and decree dated April 5, 1976, of the lower appellate Court, by which the decision of the trial Court was affirmed and first appeal of the defendant-appellant Kirpal was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Nathan brought a suit for possession of the land in dispute against the appellant Kirpal alleging that the latter had been inducted on this land as a licence and that his licence stood revoked. The case of the appellant in defence was that he was occupying the land as a tenant and had acquired occupancy rights. He took up the abjection that in view of Section 77, Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit,. The trial Court on assessment of evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was inducted on the land in dispute as a tenant and not as a licencee, but, having asserted rights. of ownership in a previous litigation between the parties wherein the assertion was proved wrong he has forfeited tenancy rights and as such his present occupation is in the capacity of a trespasser. The trial Court held that in such circumstances the plaintiff's suit was triable in a Civil Court. On these findings the plaintiff was granted a decree for possession against the appellant. The lower appellate Court affirmed this decision and as mentioned earlier dismissed the first appeal of Kirpal.

(3.) The contention of the learned appellant's counsel is that despite the appellant's disclaimer of plaintiff's ownership he cannot be dispossessed by a decree of Civil Court and that the plaintiff can eject him only under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and for this he has to approach the Revenue Court, The submission of the learned counsel, therefore, is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and to pass a decree of possession against the appellant. The contention of the learned respondent's counsel on the other hand is that he appellant having repudiated the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the previous litigation forfeited his rights of tenancy and as such the Civil Court had requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to grant a decree for possession to the respondent. against him.