THANA SINGH Vs. SHADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is on behalf of Thana Singh, the plaintiff, in respect of whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,592/ - this finding was given by the lower appellate Court that the suit could only be filed in a revenue Court. The suit was tried by Sub Judge Third Class, Bhatinda, who by his judgment dated 25th February, 1974, had held that the civil Court had the necessary jurisdiction and had consequently passed a decree for the recovery of the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff. The Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, in his judgment dated 17th May, 1975, took this view that the pleadings of the defendant were such which required the matter in dispute between the parties to be determined by a revenue Court. He took note of proviso (1) to sub -section (3) of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and for that reason passed an order for the return of the plaint.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff on 11th June, 1972, and was passed upon a bond executed by Shadi defendant whereby it had been claimed that the defendant had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,900/ -. A sum of Rs. 400/ - out of this amount was not to carry interest but the remaining sum of Rs. 1,500/ - was payable with interest to be calculated at the rate of 2 per cent per month. There was then a further recital in the deed showing that the defendant was to obtain 1/14th share in the crops to be jointly cultivated. It is apparent that Thana Singh was the owner of the land and that Shadi had been engaged by him as a siri for the crop year 1970 -71. The deed was executed on 11th June, 1970.

(3.) IN para 1 of the written statement the defendant denied that he had obtained any amount by way of loan. He asserted that he obtained a sum of Rs. 900/ - as the condition for joining as a siri. Further, according to the defendant, he had obtained five maunds of wheat. He then made this grievance that the plaintiff had not rendered any account to him with regard to the produce of the land. This was then the defence raised by the defendant that without rendition of the accounts the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The dispute between the parties seems to have arisen as the defendant had issued a notice dated 14th June, 1971, for the rendition of accounts. The defendant held out this threat that if the share of the produce was not handed over to him within a specified period he would take further proceedings in a Court of law.