PREMDAS Vs. BALKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal governs the disposal of Second Appeal No. 534 of 1927. Mahant Premdas v. Balkishan: both appeals arise from a single decree of the original Court. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the defendant-respondent had a portion of a house in mouza Tili, but this-portion was totally insufficient for his requirements as an agriculturist. He purchased another house in the village without the consent of the plaintiff malguzar. The malguzar's suit for possession of the site has been dismissed. There is an order, against which the defendant has filed no appeal, that the defendant should pay Rs. 150 to the plaintiff as compensation.

(2.) IT is urged in appeal that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to decide whether the site already in possession of the defendant was insufficient for his requirements; and even if that site was insufficient, the defendant could not purchase another site without reference to the landlord. Section 203, Clause (3), Land Revenue Act is as follows:

(3.) THE question whether a transfer to him was competent is clearly not a dispute regarding the allotments of sites in the abadi. Clause (4), Section 203, which directs that such disputes shall de decided by a revenue officer, does not prevent a civil Court from deciding whether the transfer with which I am concerned was valid. Section 203, Land Revenue Act, then does not render the transfer of a house to the defendant invalid, although the plaintiff's consent was not obtained. It is not suggested that the transfer was for any other reason invalid. The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed. Costs on appellant.