FAQIRA SINGH Vs. PARDAMAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows:

(2.) The plaintiff is a zamindar and the defendants ware his occupancy tenants, On 29 September 1928 the plaintiff obtained a decree for Us. 664 against the defendants for arrears of rent. Under Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, the decree-holder applied to the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of the defendants in execution of his decree. Proceedings were taken under Section 80 and on 13 June 1927 the Assistant Collector passed an ax parte order for the ejectment of the defendants. On the next day, namely 14 June 1927, the defendants appeared and applied for review of the order of ejectment. On 25th Tuna 1927 the plaintiff obtained possession of the holdings in pursuance of the order passed under Section 80. On 2 July, the Assistant Collector rejected the application for review.

(3.) The defendants then applied for revision to the Board of Be venue, and on 25 October 1927, the Board accepted the application and set aside the ejectment order. The defendants applied to the Assistant Collector for being restored to possession of the holding. The plaintiff then instituted a suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Board of Revenue in revision was passed without jurisdiction, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obtaining possession of the holding in pursuance of the Board's order. The defendants obtained possession of the holding pursuance of the Board's order before riling their written statement and pleaded that Section 42, Specific Relief Act, barred the suit for a mere declaration. The plaintiff then amended the plaint by-praying for recovery of possession of the holding. The defence was that the suit was barred by res judicata by reason of the Board's order and that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court as the relation of landholder and tenants existed between the parties.