BEHARI LAL Vs. SAHU RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am unable to distinguish the present case from the case of Kundan Lal v. Parsadi A.I.R. 1924 All. 744. It is common ground that a suit for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants from the plot in dispute Was brought by the defendants- respondents in the revenue Court on the allegation that the plot in dispute was" land held for agricultural purposes" and the plaintiff-appellants were tenants from year to year and were liable to ejectment under Section 58(a) of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901). That suit was contested by the present plaintiffs on the ground that they had the right of the grove-holders in the plot in dispute and the plot in dispute not being held for agricultural purposes was not "land" as defined by the Agra Tenancy Act and, as such, the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to eject the appellants from the plot in dispute. This contention of the present appellants, who were defendants in the suit filed in the revenue Court, was overruled, and the suit brought by the present defendants-respondents was decreed. The decree for ejectment of the plaintiffs passed by the revenue Courts was affirmed up to the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the plaintiffs brought the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the plot in dispute, and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same. The plaintiffs case was that the plot in dispute was a grove, and the revenue, Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for the ejectment of the plaintiffs.

(2.) One of the pleas urged in defence was that the judgment of the revenue Court operated as res judicata and was a bar to the present suit.

(3.) This contention was overruled by the learned Munsif who decreed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal by the defendants the lower appellate Court held that the judgment of the revenue Court bars the present suit and accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit.