LAWS(PVC)-1913-12-8

SARJU MISR, BINDESRA KUNWAR Vs. BADRI KASAUNDHAN

Decided On December 02, 1913
SARJU MISR, BINDESRA KUNWAR Appellant
V/S
BADRI KASAUNDHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case as disclosed in the plaint may be concisely stated thus, so far as is necessary for the purpose of this appeal. The plaintiff alleged that he was the next reversioner of one Ramphal, who was a tenant at fixed rates of a certain holding. He died, leaving him surviving his widow and a widow of a pre- deceised son. These ladies continued in po-session of this holding and were entitled to a Hindu widow s estate therein. They then sold the holding to a mahajan, who in turn sold it to the zamindars. Subsequently the widows died. The plaintiff, three years after the death of the last widow, brought this suit in a Civil Court for possession of the holding and for mesne profits. It is unnecessary to set out the defence beyond stating that it was pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court and that it was burred by limitation, because in order to decide the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit and ascertain the period of limitation applicable, the allegation of the plaint, and not the nature of the defence set up, are to be considered. The learned Munsif fixed various issues, but tried one only, that of limitation, and holding the suit barred, as having been brought more than six months after the widow s death, dismissed in. On appeal this finding was reversed. The appellate court held that the rule of limitation, applicable was twelve years and he remanded the suit for decision on the other issues.

(2.) The defendant has appealed from that order of remand. It is quite clear that ii the Civil Courts have jurisdiction then the twelve years rule is applicable, but it is equally clear that if the plaintiff could have obined his remedy in the Revenue Courts then his suit is admittedly barred.

(3.) The test seems to be to ascertain what in substance and reality is the relief sought. If that relief could have been obtained on a properly worded plaint presented to a Revenue Court then the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred.