RAM PRASAD Vs. FATEH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be allowed. The learned Judge has misunderstood the case. The authority of the revenue Court is not impugned and it was not necessary for the learned Judge to intervene in order to uphold it. Nor is the term "trespasser" a definition of a status or an absence of status. A person who derives title from another, granted for the other's life, finds that on that person's death his title has come to an end. He has nothing left. He is a mere trespasser. This is not straining language. It is merely defining law. It does not mean that he is a trespasser in the sense in which the Indian Penal Code treats a trespasser.

(2.) I have not succeeded in discovering on what ground the learned Judge really thinks that this suit could have been entertained by a revenue Court. As I have had occasion to say scores of times, in order to decide in what Court a suit should be brought the first thing to examine is the plaint. Of course, if the plaint is mala fide and a mere cloak to hide the real object of the suit different considerations may arise; but in the ordinary way, assuming a plaint to be an honest, even though mistaken, attempt to state a claim it must be judged on its merits. If it breaks down on the merits the suit fails; but if it is established on the merits the suit is brought properly is the Court to which the plaint a priori applies.

(3.) This suit alleges that a lease granted by a Hindu widow for fifteen years became void on her death and claimed possession, treating the defendant who was the lessee as a trespasser. It also alleged fraud and I am bound to say that the allegations, if they bear any resemblance to the truth are remarkable like the sort of fraud which can easily be perpetrated upon a Hindu widow The lease was granted for 15 years for about half the amount of the value of the property. The significant part of it is that it was granted to a brother-in-law of a person to whom a sale had already been made and which had been set aside as invalid.