GORDHAN Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Civil Judge of Bharatpur.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Gordhan and his brother Sharad Singh sued Kishan Lal and certain other persons on the allegations that the land described in the plaint was made over to the defendants during the minority of the plaintiffs on condition that it would be returned to them when they became majors and wished to manage their own land. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were desirous of managing their own land, and called upon the defendants to return their land, but they declined to do so. THE plaintiffs claimed possession over 167 Bighas of land of Khewat No. 147 in Moza Basiya Kalan. THE suit was instituted in the court of Assistant Collector, Bharatpur, who, however, returned the plaint for presentation to a civil court on the ground that the case was triable by a civil court. THE learned Civil Judge held that the defendants became trespassers on their refusal to deliver the land, and the suit was, therefore, one covered by Art. 10, Group-B of Schedule I to the Rajas-than Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and was triable by a revenue court. That Article provides for a suit for the ejectment of a trespasser, taking possession of land without lawful authority. It does not include a suit for dispossession of a person who entered into possession lawfully but whose possession became unlawful by subsequent events. Technically, a person who wrongfully takes possession and a person who lawfully enters into possession but continues to be in possession unlawfully are both trespassers. But Art. 10 only provides for a suit to lie in a revenue court in case a person who unlawfully takes possession of land and not for a suit in the case of a trespasser of the second kind. THE case is not covered by any of the articles in the Schedule, and the civil courts have not been ousted of the jurisdiction to try a case of this nature.