RAJA SHIVA PRASAD Vs. BHUBAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued in this second appeal is whether the suit was triable in the Civil Court or was entertain able only by the revenue Court under the provisions of Section 139(5) and Section 139-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, as amended. If the decision be that it is triable by the Deputy Commissioner, it is further urged on behalf of the appellants that it is barred by limitation of one year under Section 231 of that Act.

(2.) The plaintiffs sued in 1928 for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of their holding in the Jharia estate in Manbhum on the claim that they were occupancy raiyats dispossessed by the Zamindar in Asarh 1330 (corresponding to July, 1923). The defences of the Receiver of the estate and of the other defendants who according to the defence are cultivating the land on Bhag under the Receiver, included a denial of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. That other defence having been negatived, it is contended on appeal on behalf of the defendants that the suit was only triable in the Revenue Court and was, when brought, long barred by limitation of one year.

(3.) The present law on the point is contained in Section 139(5) and Section 139-A read together. The former runs: The following suits and applications shall be cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall be instituted and tried or heard under the provisions of this Act, and shall not be cognizable in any other Court, except as otherwise provided in this Act, namely.... (5) all suits and applications to recover the occupancy or possession of any land from which a tenant has been unlawfully ejected by the landlord or any person claiming under or through the landlord.