PARO Vs. TULSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Paro plaintiff filed a suit on 1st October, 1974 against Tulsi defendant for possession of the land, as detailed in the plaint, on the allegations that she is the owner of the disputed land and that as she was ill, therefore, she allowed the defendant to cultivate the suit land as a licensee. It is alleged that the defendant had agreed to render sevices to her and that he had been rendering services to her and cultivating the land, but from the month of Jeth, Sambat 2031, the defendant stopped rendering any services and also turned the plaintiff out of her house, with the result that the defendant had refused to render services to the plaintiff and as such has no right to remain in possession of the suit land as a licensee.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he is a tenant of the disputed land under the plaintiff and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is further alleged by the defendant that so long as the plaintiffs husband was alive, the suit land was being cultivated by plaintiffs husband but after the death of plaintiffs husband, the suit land was being cultivated by the defendants father, and thereafter, for the last about 20 years, the defendant is in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant under the plaintiff. He further averred that he is not a licensee of the disputed land. The defendant further alleged that in fact the suit land had been gifted to him by the plaintiff in lieu of the services, but the revenue authorities vide order, dated 12th February, 1953, instead of making entries on the basis of the gift, entered the defendant as a tenant of the suit land, in lieu of services and maintenance. It was also alleged by tbe defendant that he never refused to render sevices to the plaintiff. On these allegations the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs suit should be dismissed.

(3.) After taking replication from the plaintiff, the trial court framed the following issues on 6th April, 1975: "1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties and this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? O. P. P.