LACHMI NARAIN Vs. MOOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant transferred to the respondent plot No. 922 in December, 1906. This plot was his sir land, and he accordingly became an ex- proprietary tenant of it. There is a pakka well in the plot, and the defendant has been using the water from this well to irrigate adjacent fields which he holds as sub-tenant from another landlord. The plaintiff brought this suit for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the water to irrigate any land other than plot No. 922 and for damages.

(2.) The defence was, first, that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court, but should have been brought in the Revenue Court under Section 65(2) of the Tenancy Act, and secondly, that the defendant was entitled to use the water of the well for any purpose he might desire. Both the Courts below have found against the defendant on both points.

(3.) With regard to the question of jurisdiction, there can be no doubt that the suit is triable by a Civil Court. Section 65 of the Tenancy Act prescribes in its first paragraph the procedure to be followed in ejectment for forfeiture and in the second paragraph now referred to allows a landlord to sue for compensation in addition to, or in lieu of suing for ejectment, or to sue for an injunction with or without compensation. This paragraph admittedly refers back to Section 57(b) of the same Act which permits the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of any act or omission detrimental to the land in the holding, or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let. Now it cannot by any straining of language be held that the use of the water of a well situated in the holding of a tenant for the irrigation of other plots of land is detrimental to that holding or inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let. It is clear, therefore, that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court but was properly brought in the Civil Court.