DEBI SAHAI Vs. DAULAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference by the learned Munsif of Meerut under Section 267 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act III of 1926) and arises out of a suit filed in the Civil Court for possession of, and damages with respect to an agricultural holding.

(2.) It appears that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and a suit for his ejectment was brought in the Revenue Court (under Section 58 of Act II of 1901) by the plaintiff and was decreed. The plaintiff's case was that notwithstanding his ejectment by the Revenue Court, the defendant forcibly took possession of the land in dispute and as such was liable to ejectment and to pay the damages claimed. The defence to the suit was that the defendant, after his ejectment from the Revenue Court, was again readmitted as a tenant of the holding in dispute by the plaintiff and was not in possession as a trespasser, and as such the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.

(3.) The suit was admittedly filed after the new Tenancy Act came into force and the point on which the learned Munsif entertained doubt was as to whether the suit was one the cognizance of which by the civil Courts was barred by Section 44 of the new Act. The learned Munsif seems to have appreciated the difficulty that if cases against persons who take forcible possession of an agricultural holding are to be held to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts, it is not conceivable to what cases Section 273 of the new Act will apply. I have had the assistance of hearing Mr. A.P. Pandey and Mr. Panna Lal, who at my request have kindly acted as amicus curiae. After giving the case my anxious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the suit as framed by the plaintiff is cognizable by the civil Court.