BIHARI LAL Vs. JANGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was originally filed in 1958 by Jangir Singh and others plaintiffs on the allegations : (1) that they purchased the proprietary rights from the previous owners; (2) that Jiwan and Likal, who were original occupancy tenants, had mortgaged the land in favour of the predecessors of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (who are the appellants before me); and (3) that the line of the occupancy tenants became extinct in 1950 and by operation of law the mortgage ceased to exist, which in any case had been acknowledged before the expiry of 60 years from the date of its creation and they were within time for its redemption. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 resisted the suit on the pleas that they had become owners by adverse possession and by expiry of time, having been in possession for 90 years. They also denied that the plaintiffs were the owners. They challenged the jurisdiction of the civil Court.

(2.) The trial Court on the preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction held that the case fell under clause (h) of Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 , and consequently returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of proper Jurisdiction. On appeal filed by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit did not fall within clause (h) of Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 , and consequently accepted the appeal and sent back the case to the trial Court for re-registering it and for deciding it in accordance with law. The defendants have filed this second appeal.

(3.) As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Durga Singh v. Tholu, 1963 AIR(SC) 361 suits between landlord and tenant fall in that category only if the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. In the present case the suit has been brought on the basis of title by the plaintiffs and the suit is being resisted on the basis of a rival title set up by the defendants. Such a suit can be decided only by a civil Court and a revenue Court has no jurisdiction. The decision of the lower appellate Court is, therefore, well based. There is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. As there is no representation on behalf of the respondents who were given actual date, there will be no order as to costs. Intimation of this will be given to the trial Court with the direction that the decision of the case, which has been delayed by two years in this Court, should be expedited.