DATA RAM Vs. DHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts that have given rise to this reference may be shortly stated. The plaintiffs came to the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, on the allegation that they were co-tenants with the defendants of certain land which was exclusively in the cultivation of the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed profits in proportion to their share in the holding. The defendants contested the suit and alleged that the plaintiffs were not the tenants of the holding and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the pleas raised by the defendants the following issues were framed by the Court: (1). Whether the plaintiffs are co-tenants of the land in dispute with the defendants? (2). Has the Court jurisdiction to try the case?

(2.) The lower Court felt itself bound by the ruling of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in Mt. Ram Kali V/s. Kamta Prasad , but foresaw some difficulties in adopting the procedure indicated in that ruling. It has therefore referred the following question to this Court for decision: Whether the plaint should in this case be returned for presentation to the proper Court or whether the suit be stayed and one of the parties be directed to obtain the declaration of his rights from the Revenue Court?

(3.) Before answering the question involved in the reference, we propose to deal with the issue of jurisdiction that has been raised by the defendants. It cannot be disputed that ordinarily the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred ( Section 9, Civil P.C.). It seems to be suggested that the decision of Issue 1, if it is in favour of the plaintiff, will involve a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant of the landlord through whom the defendant claims and that therefore the suit is of the nature contemplated by Section 121, Agra Tenancy Act. It is argued on the authority of the ruling quoted above that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act. To give effect to this contention will lead to great anomalies. The plaint as it stands discloses a suit cognizable by a Civil Court. It cannot be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The only other course left is to dismiss the suit which will mean that the defendant can, by merely denying the right of the plaintiff in such a suit, can have his suit dismissed without a trial. Obviously the procedure laid down in Section 273 of the Act cannot be applied as the defendants in this case do not plead that they hold the land in dispute as the tenants of the plaintiffs or of a person in possession of the holding from the plaintiffs.