GOBIND RAI Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff came into Court alleging himself to be the rent-free grantee of certain land. He stated that the defendants zamindars had forcibly and unlawfully ejected him from possession and enjoyment of this land on the strength of certain proceedings which they had taken behind his back in the Revenue Court, to which proceedings he had never been made a party. THE suit was brought in the court of a Munsif, who tried out all the issues on the merits and gave the plaintiff a decree. THE decree was one restoring the plaintiff to the possession which he had previously enjoyed, that is to say, to the possession of a rent-free grantee, enjoying all the rights, but subject to all the liabilities imposed on such grantees by chapter 10 of the Agra Tenancy Act (No. II of 1901). THEre was an appeal which was heard by the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. It appears that various pleas were taken on behalf of the defendants," but that they were all abandoned except one plea against the jurisdiction of the trial court. THE learned Subordinate Judge, referring to the decision in Nannhu v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj (1918) I.L.R. 41 All. 37, and placing a certain interpretation on the plaint., held that this was a suit cognizable only by a Revenue Court. On this ground he reversed the decision of the first court and dismissed the suit. THE ruling referred to by the lower appellate court has no bearing on the facts of the present case. THE plaintiff came into court alleging that he had been wrongfully ejected and seeking to be restored to the same possession which he had previously enjoyed. A rent-free grantee is not a tenant within the meaning of the definition in the Agra Tenancy Act (No II of 1901). THEre is no section in the Act, and no article in the schedule, which provides for a suit by a grantee to recover possession as such, in the event of his wrongful ejectment, even though that ejectment may be the act of his zamindar. Consequently, if the present plaintiff had no remedy in the Civil Court he had no remedy anywhere. THE decision of the lower appellate court, is clearly wrong. As the plea of jurisdiction was the only one pressed in that court, it follows that the decision of the court of first instance on the merits must be restored. We accept this appeal, set aside the order appealed against and restore the decree of the first court. THE case has been heard ex parte, but the appellant must get his costs.