CHINTAMAN MAHTO Vs. BABU AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal two questions are raised: one is the competency of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur and therefore to this Court; and the other with regard to the scope of the issue to be tried in the suit which was a suit for rent by the respondent. Certain persons who are represented in this Court by Mr. De were joined as intervenors.

(2.) The suit was commenced before the Deputy I Collector of Chota Nagpur, and in the ordinary course, would have been tried by him with the rights given in such a suit under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. But by reason of the question of, title which was raised by the introduction of the intervenor, the case was transferred; by the Deputy Collector under the Proviso to Section 139 of the Act. I notice in passing that the words of that Proviso are of the widest possible terms; it makes no condition and gives apparently no limits. It provides that the Deputy Commissioner may transfer to the Civil Court any class of suits or a particular suit; and I assume in the circumstances, as I have already stated, that the reason of this transfer was the question of title which was this.

(3.) The plaintiff had purchased the property and redeemed a person who was in the position of a zarpeshgidar. His name is Chohan Mahto and the question was whether the defendant, tenants had paid the rent to him or to the clients of Mr. De who claimed that they were the zarpeshgidars, that they lent the money in the name of Chohan Mahto. This question was raised under Issue 1, perhaps an Issue which is not very aptly expressed; the Issue was--"Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties?" Evidence was gone into and in the trial Court the present appellants succeeded, but the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the Judicial Commissioner.