GULABI Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order of the lower Appellate Court directing the memorandum of appeal to that Court to be returned to the appellant for presentation in the proper Court. The suit was instituted in the Revenue Court for resumption of certain land which was alleged to be the rant free holding of the defendants held by them for performance of pertain services. Some of the defendants in their written statement alleged that they were tenants with rights of occupancy but they added that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court. The Court of first instance went into the merits an "I decided against the defendants The litter preferred an appeal against the decision of that Court to the District Judge and they did so on the ground that a question of jurisdiction had been raised and decided and that, consequently, an appeal lay to the District Judge under Section 177(f) of the Tenancy Act. By reason of certain rulings in which there were conflicting remarks, the question raised in this cease was referred to a Full Bench in the case of Gokaran Singh v. Ganga Singh 52 Ind. Cas. 779 : 17 A.L.J. 1072 : 1 U.P.L.R. (A.) 136 : 42 A. 91. In that case, which is reported in Volume XVII of the Allahabad Law Journal Reports, page 1072 GokaranSingh v. Ganga Singh 52 Ind. Cas. 779 : 17 A.L.J. 1072 : 1 U.P.L.R. (A.) 136 : 42 A. 91 it was held that where assuming the allegation made in the plaint to be true, it was contended that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, that would be a proper plea of jurisdiction and in such a case an appeal could lie to the District Judge In the present suit, if the allegations in the plaint are true, it could never be said that the suit was not cognizable by the Revenue Court. The suit purported to be one for the resumption of land held rent-free and it was under Section 154 of the Tenancy Act that the suit v was brought. If the land was held rent-free, a suit for resumption of such land could only be brought in the Revenue Court. Therefore, no question of jurisdiction arose in the case and the plea of jurisdiction was a futile plea. It was also manifestly futile because the defendants own allegation was that they were tenants with a right of occupancy. A suit for the enjoyment of such tenants was undoubtedly one cognizable by a Revenue Court. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was, therefore, right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and this application for revision must fail. I accordingly dismiss it with coats.