BEANT SINGH Vs. NATHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against a decree of the learned District Judge, Sirmur, whereby, the suit of the petitioner, for the recovery of Rs. 326.12 P, as mesne profits of land, measuring 12 bighas and 15 biswas, was dismissed. The suit was founded on the allegations that the land was owned and possessed by the petitioner, that he had prepared the land for sowing Rabbi crop for 1961, but that the respondent had taken forcible possession of, and had sown the Rabbi crop for 1961, in, the land and had also, illegally harvested that crop

(2.) The respondent denied that he had taken forcible possession of the land or had illegally harvested Rabbi crop for 1961. His plea was that the land was evacuee property and had been allotted to Udho Dass, who had leased out the land to the respondent, and that he had been cultivating the land, as a tenant, upto Rabbi 1961. The respondent, further, pleaded that the land was allotted to the petitioner as a result of the scheme of consolidation of holdings, and possession was delivered to him in the month of June, 1961, prior to which date the petitioner had nothing to do with the land. The respondent had, also, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the suit was triable by a revenue Court only

(3.) The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Sirmur, who had tried the suit, held that the respondent had not taken forcible possession of the land but was its tenant, upto Rabbi 1961 and was therefore, entitled to harvest that crop. He, further held that the land was allotted to the petitioner as a result of the scheme of consolidation of holdings and that the petitioner was put into possession in June, 1961. But instead of dismissing the suit of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge ordered the return of the plaint to the petitioner for presentation in the proper Court, as in his opinion, relationship of Landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the suit was triable by a revenue Court, only.