MURLIDHAR Vs. HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, Hussain Khan, is a 3 anna 6 pies co-sharer in mauza Gohjar (Chhindwara). He acquired this share under a registered sale-deed, dated 30th June 1922 (Ex. P.4) from the previous co-sharers Ganpat Rao. Damodar, Prahlad and Shri Niwas. On execution of the sale-deed, the vendors became ex-proprietary tenants of the three fields in suit, but four days later, viz., on 4th July 1922, they surrendered three fields to the plaintiff on payment of a consideration of Rs. 610. Defendant 1, Murlidhar, is the lambardar of the patti in which the fields are situated. He presented an application under Section 13, Tenancy Act . 1920, to the Deputy Commissioner, Chhindwara, and obtained possession of the fields from the plaintiff in pursuance of the said application. The other three defendants are subsequent transferees of the land.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit to recover possession of the three fields from the defendants and also alleged that the action of the revenue authorities in placing defendant 1 in possession was ultra vires and without jurisdiction, The Subordinate Judge held that the fields in suit were the exclusive sir of the plaintiff, that he alone had the right to take a surrender of the land and that the action of the revenue authorities in connexion with defendant l's application was without jurisdiction. The first two defendants appealed to the Court of the District Judge who confirmed the judgment and decree of the first Court.

(3.) I do not think on the facts of the present case it is possible to hold that by any stretching of language the lambardar, defendant 1, can be described as the landlord of the tenants of the fields in question: cf. Nand Kishore v. Lal Singh A.I.R. 1924 Nag. 381. In this view of the case, therefore, I am of opinion that the application under Sections 12 and 13, Tenancy Act, was an incompetent one and that the revenue Court was acting without jurisdiction in passing the orders it did. I find, myself, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge in his finding that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in the present case is not barred.