HIRDEY NARAIN RAI Vs. JAGADISH NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises under the following circumstances: The respondents who are two in number namely, Jagdish Narain Rai and Musammat Kesha Kunwar, brought a suit in the Civil Court against the appellant Hirdey Narain Rai for possession and mesne profits on the allegation that the parties were joint owners of the plots in suit and the share of the plaintiffs, namely, the present respondents, was two-thirds. The appellant pleaded that ha was, apart from the question of the title being found in the parties, the sole tenant of the entire land in suit, and, therefore, he was not liable to be ejected, his possession being lawful. The respondents case was that the lands were the khudkasht of the parties and the entry of the appellant's name as a tenant in the village papers was a fictitious one. In accordance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act, the learned Subordinate Judge referred the appellant to the Revenue Court. The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was accordingly instituted by the appellant in the Revenue Court. The respondents pleaded there that the entry in favour of the appellant as a tenant was fictitious, and that, if there was a tenancy both the parties ware entitled to it. They further took the plea that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Assistant Collector held that he had jurisdiction, the case having been referred to him by the Subordinate Judge. He further held that the appellant was an occupancy tenant of the lands, holding under the entire body of proprietors.

(2.) The respondents being dissatisfied with the decree of the Assistant Collector lodged an appeal before the learned District Judge, There, it was contended for the appellant that the appeal lay to the Commissioner and not to the District Judge. The learned District Judge held that he had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and, accordingly, entertained the appeal, and in the result dismissed the suit of the appellant as instituted in the Revenue Court.

(3.) In this appeal only one point has been urged, namely the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the entertainment of the appeal by the District Judge was entirely against the entire scheme on which Section 202 of the Tenancy Act has been based.