KANCHAN TELI Vs. MOGA MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action in which the plaintiff originally claimed possession of the land in suit as raiyat as against the defendants. He claimed to have been settled on the land by the landlord in 1920. The settlement by the landlord was after the original tenant had abandoned his holding. At the time that the original tenant abandoned the holding, an under-raiyat (who is the defendant in this case) was in possession. The plaintiff came to Court asserting that the defendant became his under-tenant, I assume by attornment.

(2.) It is important to notice that the defence that the defendant set up was that he had never been the under-tenant of the plaintiff, that he had been in adverse possession for more than twelve years and that the plaintiff's suit was therefore barred by limitation. Two questions arose in the Courts below and they have been discussed at considerable length in this Court. The first question was whether the civil Court had jurisdiction, and the second was that the action was barred by limitation, or, to express it in other Words, the defendant had acquired an adverse title. The trial Court decided that the matter, being governed by Section 139, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the civil Court had no jurisdiction; and the suit was dismissed, although there was a discussion with regard to some of the issues which had been framed in the case amongst which was "Is the gait barred by limitation?"

(3.) The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendant had been in possession for upwards of twelve years and therefore the plaintiff could not recover possession quite apart from the question of jurisdiction. The appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court on both the questions. In second appeal it is contended by Mr. S.N. Bose on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the matter of jurisdiction must be determined only by the allegations in the plaint. There is no dispute that a plaint in the ordinary cases would determine the jurisdiction: that is to say, that a Court would be justified in rejecting a plaint on the allegations contained therein. But what we have here is a different state of affairs. The Court did not reject the plaint.