SITA RAM Vs. CHAIT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a very difficult question of law in the conflict of jurisdiction between the Revenue and Civil Courts.

(2.) The plaintiff, Chait Ram, brought this suit in the Court of the Munsif of Kanauj on the following allegations: (1) Plot No. 3404 was part of the occupancy holding of one Ghissa deceased. The plaintiff alleged himself to be Ghissa's first cousin, (that is, Ghissa's father's sister's son,) and he says, that during Ghissa's lifetime he was joint with him in cultivation and after Ghissa's death became the rightful owner and possessor of the entire agricultural holding. (2) Besides this, after the death of Ghissa, the plaintiff was recognized by all the Zemindars of the said cultivatory holding as its occupancy tenant, and Raghubar Dayal, the Lambardar of the village, testified to his being an occupancy tenant in the village papers before the officers concerned. (3) The plaintiff pays the rent of the holding in dispute to the Zemindars, and in this way also, has acquired occupancy rights in respect thereof. (4) The defendants in collusion with the Lambardar and others forcibly cut and appropriated in March 1920 the Rabi crop which the plaintiff had sown on this field, during his absence. It is further alleged that the defendants have no connection or concern of any kind either with the said cultivatory holding or with the said crop. In the 6 paragraph of the plaint it is stated that when the plaintiff returned and complained to the defendants about their wrongful acts the defendant No. 1 said that he was himself the tenant of the said holding under a lease.

(3.) This allegation is said to be quite false. It is denied that defendant No. 1 could get any rights under any lease and that the lease set up by him, had never been acted upon. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff are: Firstly, Rs. 100, the value of the crop illegally cut by the defendants.