MADAN LAL Vs. MANZUR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in the present suit was sued in the Revenue Court for ejectment from two plots. He pleaded with regard to one plot that he was one of the proprietors, and with regard to the other plot that he was the occupancy tenant. The defendants on the other hand asserted that the present plaintiff was their sub-tenant. The Revenue Court referred the defendant to the Civil Court to establish his alleged title as proprietor. The present suit was then instituted by the plaintiff and he claimed relief not only in respect of his alleged proprietary right but also in respect of his occupancy rights. The learned Munsif states as follows: Issues are framed on the pleadings and the statements of the parties Pleaders or parties and their pairohars themselves and the parties and their Pleaders are bound by their statements. Those statements must be treated as though incorporated in the pleadings themselves. Now in this case it has been admitted by the plaintiff s special attorney and pairohar that the defendants were the plaintiff s zemindars of the plots, the subject of dispute in this issue, along with certain other zemindars and that the plaintiff was the occupancy tenant of them and not a subtenant merely. "On this basis the learned Munsif went into the case and decided so much of the plaintiff s claim as was made in respect of proprietary rights in favour of the plaintiff, but he dismissed the rest of the claim on the ground that the Civil Court could not entertain the matter having regard to the provisions of Sections 167 and 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have thought that the claim in respect of occupancy rights was a claim between two rival claimants to an occupancy holding." He in no wise holds that the special attorney of the plaintiff did not make the admission mentioned by the Munsif as to what the plaintiff s case was and a review of the surrounding circumstances of the present case shows that the plaintiff s real claim was as stated by his special attorney. If the plaintiff had come into the Civil Court in respect of the holding alleging that the defendant and other persons were his zemindars and that he was their occupancy tenant and asking for a declaration to that effect, it would clearly be a suit which would be barred by the provisions of the Tenancy Act to which we have referred. The plaintiff s claim in the present suit is a very different class of claim to that which is made where both parties come into Court admitting that there is a plot of land held under occupancy rights and each party claims to be entitled to the holding. In the present case both parties were claiming the position of zemindar and occupancy tenant according to what suited their interest. These were matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the avenue Court. The real question in the resent case (apart from the question decided by the Munsif) was whether or of the plaintiff was the sub-tenant of he defendant. All questions except the question of proprietary right decided by he Munsif can be tried by the Revenue court. We allow the appeal, set aside he order of the learned Subordinate Judge and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.