RAJAH NILMONI SINGH DEO BAHADOOR Vs. TARANATH MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question presented to their Lordships in this appeal is, whether the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhoom who has made decrees in rent suits under the Bengal Bent Act, No. X. of 1859, can transfer those decrees for execution into another district. That officer possesses the jurisdiction conferred on Collectors of land revenue., and having made decrees in exercise of such jurisdiction has further proceeded to make two orders transferring two decrees and execution. The High Court, in the exercise of their power of revision, have substantially quashed his orders; in point of form, they have quashed one of the orders and they have stayed proceedings on another. It is hardly necessary to enter into the details of the litigation. The High Court have decided that the Deputy Commissioner, as Judge of the Kent Court of Manbhoom, had no authority to pass the orders under Act X. of 1859, or any other law applicable to rent suits in that district.

(2.) A question was raised with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain this question in revision at all. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to say anything upon that point, except that they entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court of their own jurisdiction.

(3.) IT is not contended on behalf of the Appellant that Act X, of 1859 in any express way gave to the collector the power of transfer which has been exercised. Neither is it contended for the Respondent that the words which have been read would, without more, prevent the provisions of Act VIII. of the same year from applying to the execution of a collector's decrees beyond the jurisdiction of his Court. The contention of the Respondent is, that there is something in the language of Act X. of 1859 which excludes this power from the jurisdiction of the collector sitting as the Judge of the Rent Court established by that Act. For that purpose the Respondent's counsel referred to a number of sections which may be illustrated by a single one. Section 77 deals with cases in which a third party appears to claim title in a rent suit; it gives the collector certain powers of deciding the question before him, and then contains this proviso:--" The decision of the collector shall not affect the right of either party who may have a legal title to the rent of such land or tenure to establish his title by suit in Civil Court." There are a number of other sections of similar frame; and the contention is, that the expression " Civil Court" is used in all those sections in such a way as to shew that the framers of the Act X. of 1859 did not consider that the Kent Courts established by that Act are Civil Courts.