SUSILA BALA DASI Vs. UDAYNATH MAHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge deciding a preliminary issue which was as follows: Has this Court jurisdiction to try this suit? The nature of the suit was this: that plaintiffs are holders of zamindari estate within which under the plaintiff's predecessors, the defendant was employed as an agent and was acting as Sadar Tahsildar and was in charge of zamindari properties. He used to realize collections from sarbarakars, to receive mutation fees, carry on paddy lending and money lending, sell the paddy and receive the price thereof, settle lands with tenants on receipt of salami, realize falkar and jalkar and the price of trees sold, and at times to realize rent from tenants both amicably and by suits and was in charge of doing everything needful for the proper management of the estate in the elaka and also held a general power of attorney. The power of attorney was cancelled on 31 March 1927. The defendant has not rendered accounts of money received by him and paid over the balance due. Hence the suit is instituted for rendition of account. The objection to jurisdiction is based on Section 193(b), Orissa Tenancy Act, which gives the Revenue Court jurisdiction over. all suits, by landlords and others in receipt of the rent of land, against any agents employed by them, in the management of land or the collection of rents, or against sureties of such agents, for money received or accounts kept by such agents in the course o? such employment or for papers in their possession.

(2.) THE Subordinate Judge holds that the suit in so far as it refers to money received in respect of paddy lending and money lending, was maintainable in the civil Court, but so far as it refers to money received on account of rent collections it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Accordingly on his finding he has granted the plaintiffs liberty to withdraw that portion of the claim so that they may institute a suit regarding it before the Collector. It is contended that the Subordinate Judge should have held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the entire suit and for this reliance is placed on Kumud Narain Bhoop v. Puma Chandra Ray 4 C. 547 : 3 C.L.R. 258. That case does not appear to be on all fours with the present one. As stated in the judgment thereof, it was a suit of which certainly not the whole, possibly not any part, was cognizable by the Revenue Court. It included a claim for money handed by plaintiffs to the defendant and not received by him as a Collector of rents and land agent. In the case before me it would seem that the majority if not all of the claim, is in respect of money (P. 3) received or account kept by defendant as an agent employed in the management of a landed estate in the course of his employment as such. It may be a question of fact whether the sale of paddy received as produce rent etc., and the granting of loans of rice or cash to cultivators to enable them to finance the agricultural operations is within the scope of employment of an agent employed in the management of land, but it is beyond question that a portion of the claim is exclusively within jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. To the extent of that portion the Subordinate Judge was clearly right in saying that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to give the plaintiffs a decree: vide Secretary of State V/s. Natabar Mangaraj 4 C. 547 : 3 C.L.R. 258. I do not find therefore that there is any cause made out for interfering with the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge at this stage. THE application is dismissed, costs one gold mohur.